Cardozo professor Dan Crane and I are living parallel lives. We both attended Wheaton College and the University of Chicago Law School (Dan was two years ahead of me). We began teaching at the same time. We both teach antitrust law and have written on bundled discounts. Like Josh, we’re both presenting at the DOJ/FTC hearings on single-firm conduct. And we’ve both recently written reviews of Herbert Hovenkamp’s terrific new book,

Read the full piece here.

The eSapience Center for Competition Policy (eCCP) has launched its website, and it looks like a very promising resource for competition policy lawyers and economists. The site includes access to eCCP’s Competition Policy International journal (which has already attracted articles from a number of top competition policy writers; here is the link to the latest issue), case notes, op-eds, collections of works, and book reviews.

Read the full piece here.

The FTC/ DOJ Section 2 Hearings (aka Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act: Single Firm Conduct as Related to Competition) continued earlier this week with a session on tying Wednesday featuring David Evans, Robin Cooper Feldman, Mark Popofsky, Donald Russell, Michael Waldman, and Robert Willig.

Read the full piece here.

David Fischer (Antitrust Review) beat me to the punch announcing the FTC’s release of its staff report from the Bureau of Competition and Office of Policy & Planning on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which immunizes private actors urging government action from antitrust enforcement. The full text of the report is available here. This should prove to be an important document.

Read the full piece here.

Fred Tung highlights Wal-Mart’s new strategy of selling a month’s supply of 300 different generics for $4, noting that Target will match Wal-Mart’s prices but Walgreens and CVS will not. Isn’t competition grand? Well, not everyone is convinced that low prices for consumers is a good thing.

Read the full piece here. 

In January, Washington, D.C. will join the nearly 500 cities nationwide that have thwarted the free market’s accommodation of heterogeneous preferences and have ordered private property owners to forbid their invitees from engaging in otherwise legal behavior. I am speaking, of course, of Washington’s forthcoming smoking ban.

Read the full piece here.

Prof. Bainbridge has announced that it is time to shift from a general interest, punditry-style blog to a more narrow focus on issues of business law and economics…

Read the full piece here. 

Those of us who defend the right to outsource are frequently criticized for lacking compassion and for being concerned only with the bottom line. I’ll admit that profitability concerns generally motivate decisions to outsource (and most other business decisions), but I won’t concede that outsourcing imposes a net harm on the economically disadvantaged. If we’re really concerned with alleviating the worst instances of poverty and are not focused only on protecting our own kind, we should support the right to outsource.

Read the full piece here. 

Hanno Kaiser at Antitrust Review discusses the implications of Google’s acquisition of YouTube for the net neutrality debate. Hanno opines that the deal may increase the likelihood of a neutrality result even without legislation. While Google’s public pro-neutrality stance is well known, GMU’s Tom Hazlett (my office neighbor and fellow UCLA Economics alum) has a great column in the Financial Times highlighting the difference between Google’s “public policy” stance on net neutrality and its business model. Here’s Hazlett on Google’s now well-known position on net neutrality legislation…

Read the full piece here.