Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM While the antitrust nerds of the world (including yours truly) have been all atwitter over Leegin’s renunciation of Dr. Miles, another antitrust decision from October . . .
While the antitrust nerds of the world (including yours truly) have been all atwitter over Leegin’s renunciation of Dr. Miles, another antitrust decision from October Term 2006 may turn out to be more significant in the long run. I’m speaking of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., in which the Supreme Court considered whether predatory bidding plaintiffs must make the same two-part showing as predatory pricing plaintiffs (i.e., that the conduct at issue resulted in a below-cost price for the defendant’s products and that there was a dangerous probability that the defendant could recoup its short-term losses by exercising market power once rivals were vanquished). In answering that seemingly narrow question in the affirmative, the Court appears to have taken sides in antitrust’s greatest debate: how to define “exclusionary conduct” under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM In a California Bar Journal, Professor Chemerinsky documents what he describes as the Supreme Court’s “sharp turn to the right.” Ted Frank describes Chemerinsky’s review . . .
In a California Bar Journal, Professor Chemerinsky documents what he describes as the Supreme Court’s “sharp turn to the right.” Ted Frank describes Chemerinsky’s review of the term as “not especially honest” and discusses a few cases there. So what does Chemerinsky make of the recent antitrust decisions?
TOTM David Fischer at Antitrust Review points to a decision out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy in violation of Section . . .
David Fischer at Antitrust Review points to a decision out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act survived a motion to dismiss. Recall that Twombly rejected the “any set of facts” or “conceivability” standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson in favor of a “plausibility” standard (see, e.g. Manfred Gabriel’s article in the Antitrust Source exploring Twombly‘s implications).
TOTM The application of empirical economic methods in antitrust can and should play an important, even central, role in the development of sound competition policy. For . . .
The application of empirical economic methods in antitrust can and should play an important, even central, role in the development of sound competition policy. For example, former FTC Chairman Tim Muris explicitly made the case that empirical examination of the economic foundations of antitrust could improve antitrust policy making and undertook efforts to make such an examination a fundamental part of the FTC’s research agenda…
TOTM At his new blog Management R&D, Luke Froeb writes about the strategy of downstream firms reducing capacity in order to increase competition among suppliers… Read . . .
At his new blog Management R&D, Luke Froeb writes about the strategy of downstream firms reducing capacity in order to increase competition among suppliers…
TOTM It appears that China may be very close to passing its Anti-Monopoly Law (HT: Danny Sokol). Like many others, I’ve been following these developments (see, . . .
It appears that China may be very close to passing its Anti-Monopoly Law (HT: Danny Sokol). Like many others, I’ve been following these developments (see, e.g., the ABA’s comments on the proposed law here). I will also be taking a trip out to China sometime later this year and so am interested in learning as much as possible about antitrust regulation in China as it occurs now as well as obstacles to its implementation under the new revised law.
TOTM GW Law received a $5.1 million award to fund a Center for Competition Law resulting from the settlement of a class-action antitrust suit brought by . . .
GW Law received a $5.1 million award to fund a Center for Competition Law resulting from the settlement of a class-action antitrust suit brought by Michael Hausfield (of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and a GW alum).
TOTM To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information . . .
To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today. More information as it becomes available.
For those looking for a little insight into the case, you might be interested in The FTC’s 1998 Complaint against Intel and the resulting Consent Decree (the entire case file is here).
TOTM Over the past few weeks I’ve read at least two dozen papers, mostly by legal scholars (but some by economists) employing or critiquing economic analysis . . .
Over the past few weeks I’ve read at least two dozen papers, mostly by legal scholars (but some by economists) employing or critiquing economic analysis of law, that use the term “Chicago School,” in a critical and misleading way. Conventionally, use of this nomenclature comes along with a claim that “Chicago School” economics is code for a particular form of non-interventionist, politically conservative philosophy based upon only an unjustified “faith” in markets.
