Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Here’s a taste of the reaction of former FTC Bureau of Economics Director Luke Froeb to some of the economic analysis in the recent Whole . . .
Here’s a taste of the reaction of former FTC Bureau of Economics Director Luke Froeb to some of the economic analysis in the recent Whole Foods merger case…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM WSJ has a fascinating story this morning about a group of restaurants in Utah, Washington, Colorado and other places adopting a completely voluntary pricing system. . . .
WSJ has a fascinating story this morning about a group of restaurants in Utah, Washington, Colorado and other places adopting a completely voluntary pricing system. No registers. No prices. No “suggested” prices and no tips. The business model is essentially to provide food and allow customers to put whatever they want in a lock box at the front of the store. This is similar to the former economist turned Bagel Man in Freakonomics who delivered bagels to DC area offices on a quasi-honor system.
TOTM It looks like, according to this report, the long-awaited Chinese Anti-Monopoly law will be passed next week and take effect August 1, 2008. See here . . .
It looks like, according to this report, the long-awaited Chinese Anti-Monopoly law will be passed next week and take effect August 1, 2008. See here for my recent post on the Chinese antitrust law with links to relevant scholarship, and here for Geoff’s earlier post while visiting the Conglomerate a while back. See also the China Business Law Blog on the NDRC’s successful challenge against the China Ramen Noodle Association under the Price Law.
TOTM The FDA, it seems, is rejecting more new drugs. The agency approved only 61 percent of 2007 drug applications through mid-August, down from 73 percent . . .
The FDA, it seems, is rejecting more new drugs. The agency approved only 61 percent of 2007 drug applications through mid-August, down from 73 percent in the same period last year. A new report by James Kumpel of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. shows that FDA approvals of drugs made from new chemical compounds are at their lowest level in a decade.
TOTM I’m not one to gloat. Ok, yes i am. As Thom indicated, the court reached what I believe is the right result in the Whole . . .
I’m not one to gloat. Ok, yes i am. As Thom indicated, the court reached what I believe is the right result in the Whole Foods case yesterday. I’ve been beating this drum since the merger challenge was announced (I won’t bother linking, yet again, to the series of posts. Search for “Whole Foods” up there in the top left corner, if you’re interested). The court’s order indicates that we can expect a redacted (93 page) decision sometime soon. I very much look forward to it.
TOTM Geoff made all the right arguments on the FTC’s embarrassing effort to thwart the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger. Indeed, he was one of the first . . .
Geoff made all the right arguments on the FTC’s embarrassing effort to thwart the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger. Indeed, he was one of the first to do so and thereby earned an honored link on Whole Foods’ website.
TOTM While the antitrust nerds of the world (including yours truly) have been all atwitter over Leegin’s renunciation of Dr. Miles, another antitrust decision from October . . .
While the antitrust nerds of the world (including yours truly) have been all atwitter over Leegin’s renunciation of Dr. Miles, another antitrust decision from October Term 2006 may turn out to be more significant in the long run. I’m speaking of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., in which the Supreme Court considered whether predatory bidding plaintiffs must make the same two-part showing as predatory pricing plaintiffs (i.e., that the conduct at issue resulted in a below-cost price for the defendant’s products and that there was a dangerous probability that the defendant could recoup its short-term losses by exercising market power once rivals were vanquished). In answering that seemingly narrow question in the affirmative, the Court appears to have taken sides in antitrust’s greatest debate: how to define “exclusionary conduct” under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
TOTM In a California Bar Journal, Professor Chemerinsky documents what he describes as the Supreme Court’s “sharp turn to the right.” Ted Frank describes Chemerinsky’s review . . .
In a California Bar Journal, Professor Chemerinsky documents what he describes as the Supreme Court’s “sharp turn to the right.” Ted Frank describes Chemerinsky’s review of the term as “not especially honest” and discusses a few cases there. So what does Chemerinsky make of the recent antitrust decisions?
TOTM David Fischer at Antitrust Review points to a decision out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy in violation of Section . . .
David Fischer at Antitrust Review points to a decision out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act survived a motion to dismiss. Recall that Twombly rejected the “any set of facts” or “conceivability” standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson in favor of a “plausibility” standard (see, e.g. Manfred Gabriel’s article in the Antitrust Source exploring Twombly‘s implications).
