Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 3209 PublicationsWritten Testimonies & Filings
TOTM While we’re on the topic of antitrust, I thought I would take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to a nice series of posts . . .
While we’re on the topic of antitrust, I thought I would take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to a nice series of posts over at Antitrust Review. Collectively these posts make up the beginnings of an excellent primer on antitrust economics, told in Hanno Kaiser’s inimitable manner. I don’t agree with all of it, but all of it is thoughtful and well-taken. Well worth a read in your spare time.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM SCOTUS’ Dagher opinion is indeed good news. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Ninth Circuit held that the pricing policy of two joint ventures . . .
SCOTUS’ Dagher opinion is indeed good news. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Ninth Circuit held that the pricing policy of two joint ventures between Shell and Texaco were per se illegal under the Sherman Act. As it stood, the Ninth Circuit’s analysis threatened per se antitrust liability for joint ventures engaging in the unremarkable practice of setting prices for their own practices. Judge Fernandez’ dissent describes the ruling more creatively, arguing that it created a “exotic beast, no less strange than a manticore, roaming the business world.” After SCOTUS’ 8-0 reversal, the exotic beast roams no longer.
TOTM To almost no one’s surprise, the Court ruled today (unanimously) in Texaco v Dagher that a pricing agreement between Shell and Texaco which was part . . .
To almost no one’s surprise, the Court ruled today (unanimously) in Texaco v Dagher that a pricing agreement between Shell and Texaco which was part of a lawful joint venure is not per se illegal under the Sherman Act. See this Reuter’s story here (HT: Bill).
TOTM An article in the current issue of the Economist contends that “American environmentalists could be forgiven for throwing up their hands and heading north” (to . . .
An article in the current issue of the Economist contends that “American environmentalists could be forgiven for throwing up their hands and heading north” (to Canada). Why? Because “the Bush administration wants to sell some 300,000 acres of national forest land in 35 states, mostly out west.”
TOTM One of my students brought to my attention this pearl of wisdom from (what appears to be this week’s forthcoming) The Ethicist column in the . . .
One of my students brought to my attention this pearl of wisdom from (what appears to be this week’s forthcoming) The Ethicist column in the NYT…
TOTM There’s been some recent (and widely disparate) posting on the nature and governance of universities. See, for example, here (Tsai on sports and higher ed), . . .
There’s been some recent (and widely disparate) posting on the nature and governance of universities. See, for example, here (Tsai on sports and higher ed), here (Oesterle on endowment spending), here (Bollier on the knowledge commons; see especially comments by me and Josh in the . . . comments section (duh)), here (Posner on tenure), here (Becker on tenure), and here (me on the education market of the future). More recently Becker and Posner wade back in with posts on for-profit universities.
TOTM The NCAA is no stranger to defending antitrust suits. Remember Maurice Clarett? How about the NIT? Tom Farrey of ESPN the Magazine brought my attention . . .
The NCAA is no stranger to defending antitrust suits. Remember Maurice Clarett? How about the NIT? Tom Farrey of ESPN the Magazine brought my attention to a new and very interesting antitrust suit filed last week in Los Angeles on the theory that the NCAA has illegally conspired to prohibit member colleges from offering athletic scholarships covering the “full cost” of attendance. Apparently, the NCAA fixes a standard scholarship package, called “grant-in-aid,” which is approximately $2,500 less than the official cost of attendance.
TOTM You may or may not know that Oregon’s Measure 37 — our anti-takings measure — was ruled unconstitutional last year by a state trial court. . . .
You may or may not know that Oregon’s Measure 37 — our anti-takings measure — was ruled unconstitutional last year by a state trial court. See this post by Todd Zywicki. But today the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, and handed the effort to quash Measure 37 a resounding defeat. The court’s holding, on each of the claims raised…
TOTM Dale Oesterle has called Gretchen Morgenson a “national treasure.” Today Larry Ribstein exposes the treasure for fool’s gold. I’m with Larry on this one. Morgenson’s . . .
Dale Oesterle has called Gretchen Morgenson a “national treasure.” Today Larry Ribstein exposes the treasure for fool’s gold. I’m with Larry on this one.
Morgenson’s article on executive compensation is yellow journalism at its worst (well, at least a far as business journalism goes. And really — what else is there?).
