Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM I must confess that my basic reaction to the Section 2 report was disappointment. It’s not that I find much fault with the report itself–a few quibbles . . .
I must confess that my basic reaction to the Section 2 report was disappointment. It’s not that I find much fault with the report itself–a few quibbles yes, but generally I find it quite satisfactory–but that after all of the time and effort put into the joint hearings by the FTC, the FTC wasn’t able to join the report. Moreover, the shrill dissenting statement by three commissioners will probably prevent the report from playing influencing judicial decisions or legislation.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Given the embarrassing outcome of the FTC/DOJ single-firm conduct hearings, it is worth revisiting what the organizers of the hearings were attempting to accomplish. The Federal Register . . .
Given the embarrassing outcome of the FTC/DOJ single-firm conduct hearings, it is worth revisiting what the organizers of the hearings were attempting to accomplish. The Federal Register notice announcing the hearings provides some key insights. It read, in part…
TOTM When the Justice Department issued its Unilateral Conduct Report last September, it became an instant sensation not primarily because of its content, but because of a strident . . .
When the Justice Department issued its Unilateral Conduct Report last September, it became an instant sensation not primarily because of its content, but because of a strident public critique issued by three FTC Commissioners, including now-Chairman Leibowitz. The three (Harbour, Leibowitz and Rosch, hereinafter “HLR”) accused the Antitrust Division of placing “a thumb on the scales in favor of firms with monopoly . . . power”, and of adopting “drastic changes” comprising “a legal regime [that places] . . . the interests of firms that enjoy monopoly or near monopoly power . . .ahead of the interests of consumers”. Thundering on, HLR savaged the DOJ Report as a “blueprint for radically weakened enforcement of Section 2”, accusing DOJ of “seriously overstat[ing] the level of . . . consensus” on Section 2, and of improperly glorifying economics as “tantamount to the law itself”. Although signed by three of the four Commission members, the Statement was not presented as a position of the FTC, leaving observers to wonder about the internal process that produced the HLR statement and what it reflected about the views of the various Bureaus and other key Commission staff. For FTC/DOJ relations, already rocked by a long series of public disagreements over a string of antitrust issues (reverse-payment Hatch-Waxman settlements, price squeezes), this was a new low, unprecedented in the living memory of the antitrust bar.
TOTM A new law in Maryland will take effect on October 1 and will re-instate the Dr. Miles rule for minimum RPM. The Wall Street Journal . . .
A new law in Maryland will take effect on October 1 and will re-instate the Dr. Miles rule for minimum RPM. The Wall Street Journal reports that it is a “move that could lead to lower prices for consumers across the country.” I doubt it. There are quite a few reasons to believe that shifts back to Dr. Miles will not result in lower retail prices, much less higher output (recall that the price effects are less interesting here from a consumer welfare perspective because both cartel theories and pro-competitive theories under which RPM facilitates demand-enhancing promotional services predict upward price movement). For instance, the most likely outcome of the move to per se illegality (whether at the state or federal level through legislation) is that firms contract around the rule with more costly contractual arrangements or vertical integration. To the extent that these alternative arrangements are indeed less efficient, those costs will be passed on to consumers. And of course, the empirical evidence tells us that RPM is generally output-enhancing, not anticompetitive.
TOTM My colleague Adam Mossoff is blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy on his fascinating paper, A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the . . .
My colleague Adam Mossoff is blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy on his fascinating paper, A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket. Here’s an excerpt from the first post…
TOTM Over at Crooked Timber, Tyler Cowen comments on Steve Teles’ book on conservative legal movements. I never get tired of plugging Steve’s book (as he . . .
Over at Crooked Timber, Tyler Cowen comments on Steve Teles’ book on conservative legal movements. I never get tired of plugging Steve’s book (as he knows), so I’ll do it again here: It’s a great book, a riveting read, and instructive, to boot. Buy a copy today!
TOTM That’s from Firefox chief software architect Mike Connor in an interview with PCPro. Here’s an excerpt suggesting that Mozilla fears that its recent success might . . .
That’s from Firefox chief software architect Mike Connor in an interview with PCPro. Here’s an excerpt suggesting that Mozilla fears that its recent success might lead to antitrust liability in the United States or elsewhere…
TOTM There’s an interesting story in the WSJ about a merger between the HIV-drug businesses at Glaxo and Pfizer. Some details from the story… Read the . . .
There’s an interesting story in the WSJ about a merger between the HIV-drug businesses at Glaxo and Pfizer. Some details from the story…
TOTM Randy Picker has posted The Google Book Settlement: A New Orphan Works Monopoly? to SSRN. I have not been following the antitrust issues related to . . .
Randy Picker has posted The Google Book Settlement: A New Orphan Works Monopoly? to SSRN. I have not been following the antitrust issues related to the settlement as closely as I should be and so I’m really looking forward to reading this.
