Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Recently, Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions wrote a blog post did a drive-by hit on FTC Chairman Majoras supporting her recusal from considering the Google/DoubleClick . . .
Recently, Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions wrote a blog post did a drive-by hit on FTC Chairman Majoras supporting her recusal from considering the Google/DoubleClick merger now pending before the FTC. You really have to read the post to get the full effect of the innuendo and intimation–it’s masterfully subtle. At the time I commented on his blog…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Craig Newmark highlights this offer at Amazon allowing consumers who purchase an HD-DVD player up to 10 free DVDs. Newmark cites the DVD offer as . . .
Craig Newmark highlights this offer at Amazon allowing consumers who purchase an HD-DVD player up to 10 free DVDs. Newmark cites the DVD offer as an example of upfront competition resolving standard-based coordination problems in the presence of network externalities.
TOTM A trio of Federal Trade Commission economists (Christopher Taylor, Paul Zimmerman, & Nicholas Kreisle) have revisited Justine Hastings’ 2004 AER analysis of the ARCO/ Thrifty . . .
A trio of Federal Trade Commission economists (Christopher Taylor, Paul Zimmerman, & Nicholas Kreisle) have revisited Justine Hastings’ 2004 AER analysis of the ARCO/ Thrifty vertical merger in their paper, “Vertical Relationships and Competition in the Retail Gasoline Market: Comment.” (HT: Danny Sokol). Hastings’ analysis is viewed as particularly important because it is one of the few empirical results that suggests that vertical integration is associated with lower retail prices and that regulations restricting vertical integration might improve welfare.
TOTM Harvard College decided this year not to offer a service option many of its customers want — early admission. When Harvard’s new policy was announced, . . .
Harvard College decided this year not to offer a service option many of its customers want — early admission. When Harvard’s new policy was announced, the dean of admissions took care to emphasize, “We’re looking for all the company we can get.” Soon thereafter, Harvard got some company; Princeton adopted a similar policy, and a number of other elite Northeastern schools began planning to cut early admission.
TOTM Dave Hoffman aptly describes the contours of a lot of the blog debate over Brian Leiter’s citation rankings of law professors by specialty: Objection: “But . . .
Dave Hoffman aptly describes the contours of a lot of the blog debate over Brian Leiter’s citation rankings of law professors by specialty:
Objection: “But you didn’t measure X…” Leiter: “True. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and do your own data collection!”
I’ve got to say, I’m not sure that I really understand any of the objections to Leiter’s provision of this service. I suspect my initial reaction to the rankings was not unlike many law profs — I perused the rankings to look for scholars in my primary field: antitrust.
TOTM Over at Antitrustworldwiki.com, Keith Hylton has a very cool wiki project compiling antitrust laws around the world. Read the full piece here.
Over at Antitrustworldwiki.com, Keith Hylton has a very cool wiki project compiling antitrust laws around the world.
TOTM I recently came across a keynote speech by Frank Easterbrook (published at 52 Emory L.J. 1297 (2003)) where he discusses Type I errors in antitrust . . .
I recently came across a keynote speech by Frank Easterbrook (published at 52 Emory L.J. 1297 (2003)) where he discusses Type I errors in antitrust cases. Easterbrook, of course, produced the fundamental insight for antitrust enforcement that competition itself constrained the costs associated with false negatives while false positives were likely to ripple throughout the economy. The argument is frequently raised that those concerned with false positives overestimate both their frequency and impact.
TOTM Professor Bainbridge offers a correction to Keith’s Starbucks analysis by pointing out that Starbucks does not have franchisees. I don’t think the franchise/ franchisee distinction . . .
Professor Bainbridge offers a correction to Keith’s Starbucks analysis by pointing out that Starbucks does not have franchisees. I don’t think the franchise/ franchisee distinction has much to do with Keith’s conclusion that whatever is going on is not an antitrust problem. But the Professor is on to a really cool question about franchising and vertical integration.
TOTM The debate over the whether the current Supreme Court’s decisions are more accurately described as influenced by the Chicago School, the Harvard School, Post-Chicago thinking, . . .
The debate over the whether the current Supreme Court’s decisions are more accurately described as influenced by the Chicago School, the Harvard School, Post-Chicago thinking, or other influences has recently attracted a great deal of scholarship from premier antitrust scholars (e.g. FTC Commissioner William Kovacic’s article on the identifies a Chicago/Harvard double-helix structure in the intellectual foundations of antitrust law, Commissioner Rosch finds Chicago’s fingerprints on the recent SCOTUS decisions but reserves hope that this influence is diminishing in the lower courts, and Herbert Hovenkamp’s (Iowa) paper arguing that dominant firm antitrust jurisprudence reveals the prominent influence of the Harvard School).
