Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Financial Times (HT: Danny Sokol) highlights the problem of multi-jurisdictional antitrust enforcement, emphasizing the rise of India and China. The article repeats the basic point, . . .
Financial Times (HT: Danny Sokol) highlights the problem of multi-jurisdictional antitrust enforcement, emphasizing the rise of India and China. The article repeats the basic point, worth repeating, that international cooperation can help avoid bad outcomes with multiple regulatory stakeholders with different incentives and institutional environments…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Over at Overcoming Bias, they are asking the following question: Given how little it seems to cost to have someone killed, why don’t more corporations . . .
Over at Overcoming Bias, they are asking the following question:
Given how little it seems to cost to have someone killed, why don’t more corporations have their competitors’ leaders knocked off?
There are interesting answers in the comments suggesting that perhaps these killings or rival firms’ leaders are more common or more costly than commonly thought. Here’s a different question that only an antitrust junkie would ask: Would such a corporate assassination give rise to an antitrust violation?
TOTM While much has been said about the recent Milton Friedman Institute scuffle at the University of Chicago (including here at TOTM here), Chicago GSB Professor . . .
While much has been said about the recent Milton Friedman Institute scuffle at the University of Chicago (including here at TOTM here), Chicago GSB Professor John Cochrane’s scathing comments on the original Protest letter have stirred up some additional commentary worth reading. In particular, Craig Newmark (who adds the new fact that apparently the Protest letter was not sent to the economics department, the GSB, or the Institute — does this mean it was sent to the law school?) and Steve Horwitz, who quiet nicely turns the Protesters complaints about the negative externalities imposed on “other” Chicago faculty by the university’s free-market reputation on its head…
TOTM Geoff and Thom (see the comments) continue to have the Whole Foods litigation covered. I don’t and can’t have anything to add to their comments . . .
Geoff and Thom (see the comments) continue to have the Whole Foods litigation covered. I don’t and can’t have anything to add to their comments about the particulars of the litigation. I will note, playing off my previous post on bad case law out there looking to be overturned, that there is significant demand for some guidance from the Supreme Court on horizontal mergers and market definition in particular.
TOTM The DC Circuit has reversed the district court in the Whole Foods case. The opinion is here. [HT: Danny Sokol] As regular readers know, we . . .
The DC Circuit has reversed the district court in the Whole Foods case. The opinion is here. [HT: Danny Sokol]
As regular readers know, we have covered this case extensively on this blog, including most recently this great, lengthy post from Thom on the proper standard of review. I wouldn’t be surprised if Thom is disappointed with the standard adopted by the DC Circuit in its appeal, and I look forward to his thoughts.
TOTM My colleague Tom Hazlett (George Mason University) has a characteristically thoughtful and provocative column in the Financial Times on the recent Clearwire joint venture and . . .
My colleague Tom Hazlett (George Mason University) has a characteristically thoughtful and provocative column in the Financial Times on the recent Clearwire joint venture and what it tells us about the “innovation commons” and current public policy debates such as network neutrality, spectrum property rights, and municipal wi-fi. Here’s an excerpt…
TOTM There’s been a bit of discussion about the “most destructive” decision that is good law around the blogs, e.g. here and here, in response to . . .
There’s been a bit of discussion about the “most destructive” decision that is good law around the blogs, e.g. here and here, in response to John McCain’s criticism of Boumedine calling it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” The line of discussion led me to think about the titular question. Antitrust law has the fairly odd feature that lower court decisions are overturned at a fairly low rate. There are a handful of SCOTUS reversals of old, “bad” precedent, e.g. Leegin overturned Dr. Miles, State Oil overturned Albrecht, Independent Ink overturned the rule that a patent holder was presumed to have market power in tying cases (my analysis here). In fact, prior to Leegin, the SCOTUS had been routinely reversing some bad prior precedent with little discussion (compare the reaction to Leegin to the unanimous State Oil decision on Max RPM in 1997 in which there was zero talk of stare decisis!).
TOTM The August issue of the Antitrust Source will feature several short contributions from lawyers, judges, professors, and economists in the antitrust community suggesting some recommended . . .
The August issue of the Antitrust Source will feature several short contributions from lawyers, judges, professors, and economists in the antitrust community suggesting some recommended reading (a book, scholarly article, or judicial opinion) for the transition team members of the new administration.
Popular Media The Chronicle of Higher Education provides a useful summary of the OS-Liebowitz debate on file sharing we’ve been following for a while (thanks to David Glenn for the tip). I . . .
The Chronicle of Higher Education provides a useful summary of the OS-Liebowitz debate on file sharing we’ve been following for a while (thanks to David Glenn for the tip). I like this description of the original piece by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf…
