Google’s motion to dismiss Kinderstart’s claims has been granted with leave to amend all claims. Eric Goldman provides commentary, thoughts on the defamation claim, and a link to the court’s order. As far as the antitrust claims go, I commented here that Google’s motion was likely to prevail…

Read the full piece here.

I recently picked up a copy of the July Harper’s Magazine to read an essay by Barry C. Lynn entitled, “Breaking the Chain: The Antitrust Case Against Wal-Mart.” If you can’t tell from the title, the basic point is that antitrust authorities should break up Wal-Mart and put an end to the immense havoc that the retail giant has caused the economy. There is very little in the way of actual analysis in the article. It is mostly hand waving about retail consolidation without economic coherence, with some dramatic parade-of-horribles-type hyberbole mixed in.

Read the full piece here.

Kinderstart.com has filed a suit against Google which includes an antitrust claim based on the theory that Google changed its ranking algorithm in a manner that caused Kinderstart’s ranking to drop and revenues to plunge. HT: Antitrust Review. Eric Goldman has got this covered, including links to the complaint, analysis, Google’s motion to dismiss and related briefs, and the oral argument transcripts. The briefs and transcripts (antitrust arguments by Jonathan Jacobson at Wilson Sonsini) are well worth reading on the antitrust points.

Read the full piece here.

Hanno Kaiser at the Antitrust Review reports (courtesy of the ABA listserv) that SCOTUS has granted cert in Weyerhauser (predatory buying) and Twombly (pleading standards), but not Schering-Plough (reverse payments).

Read the full piece here.

Economist Michael Salinger, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Economics for the past year, comments on the recent FTC Report and price gouging in Sunday’s WSJ (HT: Greg Mankiw). I have blogged a bit about the FTC Report previously: once about its findings (that “market manipulation” did not explain post-Katrina price increases), once about media reactions to the Report, and again criticizing the ill-advised proposed federal price gouging legislation.

Read the full piece here.

The press release is here. The petition alleges that the ABA violated at least six provisions of the 1996 antitrust consent decree, which was otherwise scheduled to expire on June 25th, and was filed along with a stipulation and proposed order in which the ABA acknowledges these violations and agrees to pay $185,000 in fees and costs.

Read the full piece here. 

There is a very interesting development in the ongoing saga of the FTC v. Schering-Plough Corporation, a very important antitrust case involving a payment from a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer to a generic to delay entry (a “reverse payment”).

Read the full piece here.

Ok, not really. But the Antitrust Modernization Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor to repeal the Act (HT: Antitrust Review). Apparently, nine Commissioners voted in support of a the statement: “that Congress should repeal the Act in its entirety” on the grounds that: (1) the Act does not serve any purposes not already served by the Sherman Act, and (2) the Act is a net cost to consumers and competition. Though I doubt that Congress will accept the AMC’s invitation to act on behalf of consumers and repeal the Act, this the right result.

Read the full piece here. 

I posted on the FTC Report findings earlier. In sum, the FTC was able to identify only isolated and sporadic incidences of pricing behavior which were not explained by changes in supply and demand conditions at the local, regional, and national level. In addition, the FTC investigation did not reveal any antitrust violations. The reactions to the FTC’s findings exhibit the expected variance from political pandering, to accusations that the FTC “whitewashed” its report, to boredom from economists (to whom terms like “price gouging” and “unconscionable prices” are foreign).

Read the full piece here.