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.

Read the full piece here. 

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.”

Read the full piece here.

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.

Read the full piece here. 

Last week the European Commission slapped Intel Corporation with the largest antitrust fine in the Commission’s history, announcing that the sanctions were necessary to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of a “dominant firm.” What did Intel do to merit this sanction? Whatever its intentions were, its actions leading up to the fine resulted inarguably in lower prices for consumers.

Read the full piece here.

Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, but particularly in cases where prices are falling.   This discussion reminded me of Thom’s excellent post responding to the NYT editorial and an AAI working paper and putting theoretical anticompetitive concerns to an empirical test and discussing evidence of falling prices for both Intel and AMD products and increased operating margins for AMD.  So how are we to sensibly evaluate the EU decision?

Read the full piece here.

Our own Josh Wright is quoted in the lead article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Josh opines that the European Union’s record $1.45 billion fine against Intel for lowering its prices on granting “exclusionary” rebates on microprocessors means that FTC action against Intel is “much more likely than it was two weeks ago.” And what about our reinvigorated DOJ, Josh? Aren’t they going to want a piece of this action, lest they look like pansies next to those muscular South Koreans, Europeans, and FTC folk?

Read the full piece here.

I am curious about something.  AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its Intel 386 clone in the early 90s.  In that time, inarguably, microprocessor prices have plumeted and  processing power and other features have increased dramatically (I’m aware that we don’t know what the but-for world would look like, but these effects have been enormous).

Read the full piece here.

A few quick reactions to the repudiation of the Section 2 Report, and more importantly, what it means for the future of monopolization enforcement…

Read the full piece here. 

Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume.  Here’s Dan’s brief abstract…

Read the full piece here.