Search Results

Judge Ginsburg and I are working on a project for an upcoming festschrift in honor of Bill Kovacic.  The project involves the role of settlements in the pursuit of the goals of antitrust.  In particular, we are looking for examples of antitrust settlements between competition agencies and private parties — in the U.S. or internationally — involving conditions either: (1) clearly antithetical to consumer welfare, or (2) that arguably disserve consumer welfare.  In the former category, examples might include conditions requiring firms to make employment commitments.  The second category might include conditions placing the agency in an ongoing regulatory role or restricting the firm’s ability to engage in consumer-welfare increasing price or non-price competition.

I turn to our learned TOTM readership for help.  Please feel free to leave examples in the comments here — or email me.  Cites and links appreciated.

Filed under: antitrust, doj, federal trade commission, scholarship, settlements

Summary

In recent months a veritable legal and policy frenzy has erupted around Google generally, and more specifically concerning how its search activities should be regulated by government authorities throughout the world in the name of ensuring “search neutrality.”  Concerns with search engine bias have led to a menu of proposed regulatory reactions.  Although the debate has focused upon possible remedies to the “problem” presented by a range of Google’s business decisions, it has largely missed the predicate question of whether search engine bias is the product of market failure or otherwise generates significant economic or social harms meriting regulatory intervention in the first place.  “Search neutrality” by its very name presupposes that mandatory neutrality or some imposition of restrictions on search engine bias is desirable, but it is an open question whether advocates of search neutrality have demonstrated that there is a problem necessitating any of the various prescribed remedies. This paper attempts to answer that question, and we evaluate both the economic and non-economic costs and benefits of search bias, as well as the solutions proposed to remedy perceived costs. We demonstrate that search bias is the product of the competitive process and link the search bias debate to the economic and empirical literature on vertical integration and the generally-efficient and pro-competitive incentives for a vertically integrated firm to favor its own content. We conclude that neither an ex ante regulatory restriction on search engine bias nor the imposition of an antitrust duty to deal upon Google would benefit consumers. Moreover, in considering the proposed remedies, we find that by they substitute away from the traditional antitrust consumer welfare standard, and would impose costs exceeding any potential benefits.

Back in September, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?” Given the harsh questioning from the Subcommittee’s Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Ranking Member Mike Lee (R-UT), no one should have been surprised by the letter they sent yesterday to the Federal Trade Commission asking for a “thorough investigation” of the company. At least this time the danger is somewhat limited: by calling for the FTC to investigate Google, the senators are thus urging the agency to do . . . exactly what it’s already doing.

Read the full piece here.

FTC Chairman Leibowitz recently gave a speech in which he took on a number of issues, but one in particular caught my eye.  In a portion of the speech describing how antitrust has updated its procedures in order to become more efficient and avoid the problem of having decade-long cases focused upon technologies that are obsolete by the time the case is resolved, Leibowitz offers the following example of Commission success:

The best, recent example of the need to move quickly in the high-tech area is our recent Intel case.11 Our investigation of Intel started out very slowly and went on for quite some time, but once the Commission issued process and then a complaint, the litigation proceeded with alacrity and ended with a consent less than a year later.

We think the remedies in the consent do much to protect consumers while still allowing Intel to innovate, develop, and sell new products. And I am proud of the relationship that we have been able to maintain with Intel since then. Still, we might have gained more for consumers: much was lost in the years between the start of the investigation and the litigation’s conclusion, and competition for CPUs and other components in personal computers might have been different had we moved faster initially. And moving quickly might have been fairer to Intel too.

As a result of what we have learned from Intel and other cases, the Commission is no longer bogged down in outmoded procedures. Much of what we’ve done at the Commission in recent years has been to make us better at getting to the bottom of investigations and resolving them faster to ensure that businesses get certainty and consumers get protection quickly. That was at the heart of the changes to our Part 3 rules, you get an antitrust trial, and it is implicit in every effort we make to learn more about industries and develop our internal expertise. We have also pushed to make “go/no go” decisions on investigations earlier so that they don’t linger on. All this reduces expenses and, I believe, allows us to act with a lighter hand.

There is a lot about this strikes me as misguided.

First, lets start broadly.  Striking quickly and striking accurately are two different things.  As John Wooden famously says “never mistake activity for achievement.”  Bill Kovacic has emphasized that case counts alone (nor win rates alone) are not very informative regarding agency performance.   Claims of agency success based upon activity levels in extracting settlements and such should be viewed skeptically without evidence that the activity prevented anticompetitive activity and improved consumer welfare.  Doing things faster doesn’t mean doing them any better.

Second, so what about accuracy?  If Intel is the “best example” the Chairman can come up with of antitrust enforcement in high-tech industries, this is not a good sign for the Commission.  I’ve written quite a bit about the Intel complaint and settlement — and so won’t belabor the point here — but suffice it to say that the evidence does not support the claim that the settlement improved consumer outcomes.  In fact, consumers are probably worse off in my view.  Reasonable minds may differ on these points but it is difficult to evaluate the evidence and come away confident that the settlement is as successful as claimed.  And that’s not even counting the peculiar endorsement it gives Lepage’s, which has been overwhelming condemned a standard which threatens pro-consumer conduct.

Third, the Chairman writes: “And I am proud of the relationship that we have been able to maintain with Intel since then.”  Ugh.  Developing longstanding relationships with Intel and other companies is not something for the Commission to be proud of.  Its just not.  In this case, the relationship derives from the product design elements of the Intel settlement.  Remember this language?

Respondent shall not make any engineering or design change to a Relevant Product if that change (1) degrades the performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent and (2) does not provide an actual benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent, including without limitation any improvement in performance, operation, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product; provided, however, that any degradation of the performance of a competing product shall not itself be deemed to be a benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any engineering or design change at issue complies with Section V. of this Order.

I’m sure Intel’s lawyers and engineers have a fine relationship with the FTC.  But lets not mistake that with agency success or something that consumers should celebrate.

Never mistake activity with achievement.

Filed under: antitrust, federal trade commission, technology

TOTM readers know that I’ve long been skeptical of claims that expansive use of Section 5 of the FTC Act will prove productive for consumers.  I’ve been critical of recent applications of Section 5 such as Intel and N-Data.  Now comes yet another FTC consent decree in PoolCorp.  I’m still skeptical.  Indeed, PoolCorp appears to provide ammunition for those (like me) who have criticized the Commission’s stance on expansive use of Section 5 precisely upon the grounds that it can and will be applied to conduct that is either competitively neutral or even procompetitive.

Commissioner Rosch’s dissent makes many of the key points.  Indeed his opening line gets straight to the point: “This case presents the novel situation of a company willing to enter into a consent decree notwithstanding a lack of evidence indicating that a violation has occurred.”

Before getting to specifics, the sharp disagreement between the majority and Commissioner Rosch on both the most basic of facts and economic principles is hard to miss, and gives the entire exchange a rather peculiar feel.  Here’s an example.  The majority describes the case as a standard application of a “Raising Rivals’ Costs” theory, citing Krattenmaker & Salop.  The allegation is that:

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that PoolCorp, which possesses monopoly power in many local distribution markets, threatened its suppliers (i.e., pool product manufacturers) that it would no longer distribute a manufacturer’s products on a nationwide basis if that manufacturer sold its products to a new distributor that was attempting to enter a local market.

The conditions that must be satisfied for an exclusionary theory are well known.  Substantial foreclosure of a critical input is one such necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the possibility of competitive harm.  The majority argues that PoolCorp “foreclosed new entrants from obtaining pool products from manufacturers representing more than 70 percent of sales.”  But standard antitrust analysis tells us that such foreclosure is not enough to support an inference of harm to competition.  First, we must ask whether the threatened refusals to deal actually had any impact on the allegedly impaired rivals or whether they were able to easily realign supply contracts?  Second, and most fundamentally, we must ask whether the conduct at issue had any impact on competition itself, or upon consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced output, lower quality, etc.?

Here is where things get, well, weird.

Did PoolCorp’s actions actually disadvantage any rivals?  The majority concedes that “Some of PoolCorp’s targets were able to survive by purchasing pool products from other distributors rather than directly from the
manufacturers.” Well, that doesn’t sound too bad for the Commission.  If a few firms survived but others were excluded (surely the implication of the sentence), we should continue our analysis.  But was there actually any foreclosure?

Here’s Commissioner Rosch in dissent:

“The investigation revealed that PoolCorp’s demands were not honored by manufacturers.”

What about those potential entrants that were excluded — the ones that were not so lucky as the surviving targets the majority mentions?

“Another problem with this case is that no entrants were actually excluded.”

Yikes.  One gets the impression that the Commissioners are not talking about the same case.  The majority is full of broad generalizations and assertions but no real discussion of facts.  Commissioner Rosch’s dissent offers a bit more on the exclusion claim:

“The only claim to the contrary is in Paragraph 28 of the complaint, which alleges that in Baton Rouge, “the new entrant’s business ultimately failed in 2005” because of the lack of “direct access to the manufacturers’ pool products.” The complaint neglects to mention that this entrant was able to secure supplies from other sources and later sold itself to an established out-of-state distributor. Since then, that distributor, which has had full access to supplies, has been a highly effective rival to PoolCorp. Thus, to the extent PoolCorp’s threats had an effect in Baton Rouge, they may have led to more, not less, competition.”

Not good for the Commission majority.  But injury to rivals isn’t our primary concern.  What about injury to competition?  Here, things get even murkier.  The majority plainly asserts “the harm to consumers that occurred as a result was substantial” and “consumers had fewer choices and were forced to pay higher prices for pool products.”  Sounds relatively straightforward.  Once again, Commissioner Rosch’s dissent exposes disagreement over the most basic of antitrust-relevant facts (emphasis added):

“A third problem with this case is that there was no consumer injury. The investigation did not uncover price increases, service degradation, or other anticompetitive effects in any local markets.”

Rosch goes on:

The basis for the majority statement’s claim that there was “substantial” consumer harm resulting from the alleged conduct of Respondent is a mystery. The complaint contains no factual allegations of any harm to consumers, much less “substantial” harm. Likewise, there are no factual allegations in the complaint corroborating the majority’s claim that consumers “had fewer choices and were forced to pay higher prices for pool products.”

This is a real mess.  Proponents of an expanded application of Section 5 (including Commissioner Rosch) frequently argue that it is capable of being applied with certain limiting principles, including demonstration of consumer injury.  To his credit, Commissioner Rosch is sticking to his guns on consumer injury as a limiting principle here.  But the evidence that the Section 5 is too enticing a tool for the Commission in cases lacking consumer injury is mounting.  The public disagreement over basic facts — is there harm to consumers or not?  was there foreclosure or not?  if so, how much? — also does not inspire confidence that the Commission’s discretion in applying Section 5 in cases where the conduct lies outside the scope of the Sherman Act for technical reasons will be applied in a manner consistent with the consumer welfare goals of antitrust.

Those are general problems with Section 5.  As applied here, the majority opinion is also analytically incoherent.   The Commission majority must deal with the fact that there appears to be no real foreclosure as a result of PoolCorp’s conduct — recall that what the majority described as a few successful surviving firms turns out to be no actual exclusion whatsoever.  Despite the fact that absence of foreclosure or injury to rivals in a case like this is typically the end of the line for the plaintiff, the Commission doesn’t appear to be bothered at all by the lack of evidence of harm to rivals or consumers.  Responding to the fact of no foreclosure, the Commission writes:

“However, we assess consumer harm relative to market conditions that would have existed but for the respondent’s allegedly unlawful conduct. Here, PoolCorp’s strategy significantly increased a new entrant’s costs of obtaining pool products. Conduct by a monopolist that raises rivals’ costs can harm competition by creating an artificial price floor or deterring investments in quality, service and innovation.”

This doesn’t make any sense.  If there is no foreclosure, there is no risk of consumer harm.  Period.  Indeed, while the majority asserts it, there appears to be no actual evidence of consumer harm.  At a minimum, its up for serious debate.  If it were true that PoolCorp’s strategy “increased a few entrant’s cost of obtaining pool products” in practice, and that there were sufficient exclusion to create additional market power, two things would be true: (1) one would observe harm to the rival, and (2) there would be harm to competition in the form of higher prices or reduced output.  Apparently, the Commission could must neither — even when challenged by Commissioner Rosch’s dissent to do so.

One last observation.  Commissioner Rosch’s dissent hints that economic analysis in the case demonstrated that “even if” PoolCorp fully foreclosed its rivals the harm to consumers would be minimal and a waste of Commission resources.   Query: what role are agency economists playing in the Commission’s Section5 agenda?  Unfortunately, it does not appear to be a significant one.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, exclusionary conduct, federal trade commission, monopolization

AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile presents an opportunity for judicial scrutiny of the newest iteration of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Horizontal Merger Guidelines (“2010 Guidelines”). The Agencies revised the 2010 Guidelines with an eye toward increasing transparency and predictability by conforming them to actual agency analysis. The 2010 Guidelines highlight the Agencies’ adoption of a more economically sound analytical approach focusing directly upon the competitive effects of proposed mergers and de-emphasizing the importance of market definition and competitive inferences from market structure. But, oddly, the DOJ’s complaint reverts to its pre-revision approach, emphasizing a remarkable focus upon market definition and structural analysis. The structure-heavy approach the DOJ adopts in its complaint runs afoul of the standards it espouses in the Guidelines, raising the risk of undermining their continued success as measured by judicial adoption.

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/will-the-2010-merger-guidelines-survive-the-doj-s-complaint-in-u-s-v-at-t

Abstract

In its recent report entitled “The Evolving IP Marketplace,” the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) advances a far-reaching regulatory approach (Proposal) whose likely effect would be to distort the operation of the intellectual property (IP) marketplace in ways that will hamper the innovation and commercialization of new technologies. The gist of the FTC Proposal is to rely on highly non-standard and misguided definitions of economic terms of art such as “ex ante” and “hold-up,” while urging new inefficient rules for calculating damages for patent infringement. Stripped of the technicalities, the FTC Proposal would so reduce the costs of infringement by downstream users that the rate of infringement would unduly increase, as potential infringers find it in their interest to abandon the voluntary market in favor of a more attractive system of judicial pricing. As the number of nonmarket transactions increases, the courts will play an ever larger role in deciding the terms on which the patents of one party may be used by another party. The adverse effects of this new trend will do more than reduce the incentives for innovation; it will upset the current set of well-functioning private coordination activities in the IP marketplace that are needed to accomplish the commercialization of new technologies. Such a trend would seriously undermine capital formation, job growth, competition, and the consumer welfare the FTC seeks to promote.

In this paper, we examine how these consequences play out in the context of standard-setting organizations (SSOs), whose activities are key to bringing standardized technologies to market. If the FTC’s proposed definitions of “reasonable royalties” and “incremental damages” become the rules for calculating damages in patent infringement cases, the stage will be set to allow the FTC and private actors to attack, after the fact, all standard pricing methods through some combination of antitrust litigation or direct regulation on the ground that such time-honored royalty arrangements involve the use of monopoly power by patent licensors. In consequence, the FTC’s Proposal, if adopted, could well encourage potential licensees to adopt the very holdout strategies the FTC purports to address and that well-organized SSOs routinely counteract today. Simply put, the FTC’s proposal for regulating IP by limiting the freedom of SSOs to set their own terms would replace private coordination with government hold-up. The FTC should instead abandon its preliminary recommendations and support the current set of licensing tools that have fueled effective innovation and dissemination in the IP marketplace. FTC forbearance from its unwise Proposal will improve bargaining incentives, reduce administrative costs, and remove unnecessary elements of legal uncertainty in the IP system, thereby allowing effective marketplace transactions to advance consumer welfare.

Our search neutrality paper has received some recent attention.  While the initial response from Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal was favorable, critics are now voicing their responses.  Although we appreciate FairSearch’s attempt to engage with our paper’s central claims, its response is really little more than an extended non-sequitur and fails to contribute to the debate meaningfully.

Read the full piece here.

No surprise here.  The WSJ announced it was coming yesterday, and today Google publicly acknowledged that it has received subpoenas related to the Commission’s investigation.  Amit Singhal of Google acknowledged the FTC subpoenas at the Google Public Policy Blog…

Read the full piece here.