Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Professor McCann responds to my earlier post about the Globetrotters use of exclusive contracts, and more generally, erroneously inferring monopoly power from the observation of . . .
Professor McCann responds to my earlier post about the Globetrotters use of exclusive contracts, and more generally, erroneously inferring monopoly power from the observation of a single firm winning the competition for exclusives…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil, and …. the Globetrotters? The Globetrotters just might join this list of well known antitrust defendants. The Harlem Ambassadors, a rival . . .
Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil, and …. the Globetrotters? The Globetrotters just might join this list of well known antitrust defendants. The Harlem Ambassadors, a rival exhibition basketball squad, have filed a complaint with the FTC concerning the Globetrotters’ use of “exclusivity windows” in leases with local arenas, which effectively prevent competitors from playing in the same arena around the same time as the Globetrotters. CNN Money has the story here.
TOTM Last week I made a few observations and asked a few questions about higher education in the wake of the Summers fiasco (which I dubbed . . .
Last week I made a few observations and asked a few questions about higher education in the wake of the Summers fiasco (which I dubbed l’Affair Étés, but apparently no one thought that was nearly as clever as I did).
TOTM Another 8-0 antitrust decision from SCOTUS. Very interesting. For those of you who have not been following, the Court rejected the longstanding, but almost uniformly . . .
Another 8-0 antitrust decision from SCOTUS. Very interesting. For those of you who have not been following, the Court rejected the longstanding, but almost uniformly criticized, presumption that patents confer market power for the purpose of antitrust analysis. WSJ Law Blog sums up the facts here, concluding with a quote from Steve Sunshine that the trio of cases this term “harmoniz[e] antitrust law presumptions with the economic law and policy that’s been pervasive over the past ten-to-fifteen years.â€? That sounds right.
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.
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…
