Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Jeff Toobin has an interesting profile on John Roberts in the New Yorker (HT: Jonathan Adler who also takes issue with Toobin’s description of Leegin, . . .
Jeff Toobin has an interesting profile on John Roberts in the New Yorker (HT: Jonathan Adler who also takes issue with Toobin’s description of Leegin, but goes on to challenge Toobin’s general account of Roberts as a “stealth nominee”). Toobin’s column has very little to do with antitrust. with the exception of one sentence describing the Leegin decision where he writes…
Read the full piece here.
Popular Media How much thought have you given to your electricity consumption? If it hasn’t gone beyond “I flip the switch and the light comes on,” you’re . . .
How much thought have you given to your electricity consumption? If it hasn’t gone beyond “I flip the switch and the light comes on,” you’re not alone, which is one of many reasons electricity usage in the United States is inefficient. But that’s beginning to change.
TOTM If you haven’t been living under a rock recently, you’ve seen an incredible amount of hand wringing–and proposed regulation–around “excessive compensation.” I’m a little too . . .
If you haven’t been living under a rock recently, you’ve seen an incredible amount of hand wringing–and proposed regulation–around “excessive compensation.” I’m a little too lazy to amass all the relevant links here, but both the administration and the congress are introducing regulations/bills and talking about the issue extensively.
TOTM The FTC joined the DOJ brief in American Needle v. National Football League arguing that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari. The brief characterizes the . . .
The FTC joined the DOJ brief in American Needle v. National Football League arguing that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari. The brief characterizes the question presented as…
TOTM The law and economics of RPM have been a frequent topic of discussion here for Thom and I especially, ranging from the empirical evidence on . . .
The law and economics of RPM have been a frequent topic of discussion here for Thom and I especially, ranging from the empirical evidence on RPM, to competitive resale price maintenance without free riding, to the inappropriate use of the term “price-fixing” by journalists some who should know better to describe RPM, to the Commission’s recent musical instruments investigation, and of course, Leegin.
Popular Media But wholesale rejection of the document — the most complete statement to date on the law and economics of Section 2 — because of disagreement with some of its positions is irresponsible and premature.
But wholesale rejection of the document — the most complete statement to date on the law and economics of Section 2 — because of disagreement with some of its positions is irresponsible and premature. And the rejection of specific conclusions from among the range of possibilities discussed in the report without any discussion of which other policy positions the DOJ would support, and why, severely undermines the intellectual efforts that the DOJ and FTC staffs put into the original report by summarily dismissing them. Instead, Varney asserts that the report “loses sight of an ultimate goal of antitrust laws — the protection of consumer welfare” — but cites no evidence. (And the report, for its part, mentions “consumer welfare” 31 times.) Meanwhile, the mere reference in Varney’s speech to the idea of returning to “tried and true” principles of Section 2 enforcement is meaningless, since no one knows what those are, and the whole point of the report was to define them. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the announcement dismisses the report and its intellectual bases simply because it was inconvenient to the agenda upon which the DOJ’s antitrust division is about to embark.
TOTM The NYT ran an unsigned editorial on “Intel and Competition” that, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense to us. It offers two basic arguments: (1) . . .
The NYT ran an unsigned editorial on “Intel and Competition” that, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense to us. It offers two basic arguments: (1) that the Bush administration DOJ is responsible for the state of Section 2 law requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate actual consumer harm, and (2) that foreign antitrust jurisdictions’ pursuit of enforcement actions against Intel’s loyalty rebates suggests that the failure of the Federal Trade Commission to do so is a failure of the Bush administration to enforce the antitrust laws to protect consumers.
Popular Media Wired’s Chris Anderson drinks the New Economy Kool-Aid. It’s the same old argument — information technology reduces transaction costs, leading to a radical disaggregation of industry and society — . . .
Wired’s Chris Anderson drinks the New Economy Kool-Aid. It’s the same old argument — information technology reduces transaction costs, leading to a radical disaggregation of industry and society — still supported by little more than a few colorful anecdotes, not any kind of systematic analysis. The new twist is the financial crisis, described by Anderson as “not just the trough of a cycle but the end of an era.”
TOTM I’ll be testifying tomorrow at the Federal Trade Commission hearings on Resale Price Maintenance. My panel will focus on rule of reason analysis of RPM . . .
I’ll be testifying tomorrow at the Federal Trade Commission hearings on Resale Price Maintenance. My panel will focus on rule of reason analysis of RPM Post-Leegin. There is a bit of awkwardness testifying about different modes of rule of reason analysis with legislation that would restore the Dr. Miles per se rule pending, but it strikes me as a valuable exercise nonetheless. The early afternoon panel looks very interesting and focuses on the legal and business history of RPM. I do not have a written statement for my prepared remarks, but you can see my slides here.
