Showing results for: “digital markets act”
If A Tree Falls in a Forest and Nobody Hears It, Did the Bush Antitrust Division Cut It Down?
The NYT ran an unsigned editorial on “Intel and Competition” that, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense to us. It offers two basic arguments: (1) that the Bush administration DOJ is responsible for the state of Section 2 law requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate actual consumer harm, and (2) that foreign antitrust jurisdictions’ pursuit of enforcement ... If A Tree Falls in a Forest and Nobody Hears It, Did the Bush Antitrust Division Cut It Down?
Peter Klein Throws Cold Water on New Economy Talk
Peter Klein of Organizations and Markets blog-fame kicked off the George Mason/ Microsoft Conference on the Law and Economics of Innovation a few weeks back with a talk on “Does the New Economy Need New A Economics?” His answer: No. This week, Peter takes aim at Wired’s Chris Anderson who predicts a massive shift toward ... Peter Klein Throws Cold Water on New Economy Talk
CPI Webinar: Economic and Legal Analysis of Collusion
Competition Policy International has announced its next Webinar, featuring Professors Bajari and Abrantes-Metz on the economic and legal analysis of collusion. I’ve had a blast doing these lectures the last couple of weeks teaching Antitrust Economics 101, and will be finishing up the third lecture this week (after covering basic demand side and supply side ... CPI Webinar: Economic and Legal Analysis of Collusion
Zywicki on Chrysler and The Rule of Law
My colleague Todd Zywicki has a must read op-ed in the WSJ. Here’s an excerpt: The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors — entitled to first priority payment under the “absolute priority rule” — have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting ... Zywicki on Chrysler and The Rule of Law
The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, but particularly in cases where prices are falling. This discussion reminded me of Thom’s excellent post responding to the NYT editorial and an AAI working paper and putting theoretical anticompetitive ... The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
Good Stuff (Including Josh Wright) on Intel in Today’s WSJ
Our own Josh Wright is quoted in the lead article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Josh opines that the European Union’s record $1.45 billion fine against Intel for lowering its prices on granting “exclusionary” rebates on microprocessors means that FTC action against Intel is “much more likely than it was two weeks ago.” And what ... Good Stuff (Including Josh Wright) on Intel in Today’s WSJ
Section 2 Report Quick Reactions
A few quick reactions to the repudiation of the Section 2 Report, and more importantly, what it means for the future of monopolization enforcement: First, the most disappointing thing about the withdraw of the Report and this announcement is that it is incredibly dismissive about the long hours of work put into this project by ... Section 2 Report Quick Reactions
Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume. Here’s Dan’s brief abstract: This essay reviews Bob Pitofsky’s 2008 essay compilation, How Chicago Overshot the Mark: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust. The essay critically evaluates the book’s rough handling of the Chicago School ... Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose?
Expanding on the themes in this post from the TOTM symposium book review of Professor Carrier’s new book on “Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law” to encourage innovation, I’ve posted an essay co-authored with a very talented former student and research assistant, Aubrey Stuempfle. The essay expands on some of the themes ... Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose?
Coda: Varney withdraws Section 2 Report
I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report. The comments made in the statement withdrawing the Report indicate . . . well, that Varney isn’t convinced by reading this blog, among other things. Coming on the heels of our Section 2 Symposium, the news is jarring, although ... Coda: Varney withdraws Section 2 Report
Section 2 Symposium: Alden Abbott on the International Perspective
As I indicated in my prior blog entry, U.S. competition policy vis-à-vis single firm conduct (“SFC”) is best viewed not in isolation, but, rather, in the context of other jurisdictions’ SFC enforcement philosophies, and efforts to promote greater SFC policy convergence worldwide. Given the proliferation of competition law regimes, firms that do business in multiple ... Section 2 Symposium: Alden Abbott on the International Perspective
Section 2 Symposium: Bill Page on Microsoft’s ‘Forward-Looking’ Monopolization Remedy
The DOJ’s Section 2 Report speaks in general terms about the costs and benefits of various remedies for monopolization. It prefers “prohibitory” remedies, but holds open the possibility of “additional relief,” including “affirmative-obligation remedies. The Report specifically mentions the protocol-licensing requirement of the Microsoft final judgments (§ III.E, entered in November 2002) as an example ... Section 2 Symposium: Bill Page on Microsoft’s ‘Forward-Looking’ Monopolization Remedy
