Showing results for: “RPM”
Abuse of Plaintiff Win Rates as Evidence that Antitrust Law Is Too Lenient
I was recently reading Dean Chemerinsky (Irvine Law) on the Roberts Court at Age 3. One of Chemerinsky’s standard takes when he talks about the Roberts Court is that the Court’s pro-business stance is one of its defining characteristics. Readers of the blog will know that I’ve been critical of Chemerinsky for his superficial antitrust ... Abuse of Plaintiff Win Rates as Evidence that Antitrust Law Is Too Lenient
Baker on the Dueling Bush Administration Antitrust Agencies
Jonathan Baker (American) has a column at The New Republic focusing on a different aspect of the FTC vs. DOJ scuffles over antitrust policy. Baker claims that the DOJ is engaging in what he describes as “deregulatory radicalism that allows monopolies to spin out of control,” while he is largely supportive of FTC policies. Baker ... Baker on the Dueling Bush Administration Antitrust Agencies
RPM and the NIE
I’ve just spent a couple of great days in spectacular Boulder, Colorado at a conference on the New Institutional Economics (NIE). (Not sure why the “the” is required, but it always seems to be used.) The conference, organized by Colorado Law’s Phil Weiser and hosted by the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship, ... RPM and the NIE
Are the Roberts Court Antitrust Decisions Really Pro-Business?
I’m a bit late to the party on Jeffrey Rosen’s provocative article in the NY Times Magazine claiming that the Supreme Court is biased in favor of businesses. For readers not familiar with Rosen’s claim, the basic assertion is that: With their pro-business jurisprudence, the justices may be capturing an emerging spirit of agreement among ... Are the Roberts Court Antitrust Decisions Really Pro-Business?
Franchising, Starbucks vs. Subway, and Promotional Services
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 ... Franchising, Starbucks vs. Subway, and Promotional Services
Chicago, Post-Chicago, Post-Post-Chicago: On Using Shorthand Labels Responsibly
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 ... Chicago, Post-Chicago, Post-Post-Chicago: On Using Shorthand Labels Responsibly
More Thoughts on Free Market Orthodoxy in Antitrust
In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of law and economics. In response to the post, an anonymous TOTM reader emails the following related, and probably more interesting, questions: “is there a free market orthodoxy amongst (1) legal ... More Thoughts on Free Market Orthodoxy in Antitrust
Evaluating Leegin
Thom’s excellent post covers most of the important points in Leegin and offers a fairly comprehensive critique of what I deemed to be a surprisingly weak dissent from Justice Breyer. As we’ve noted over and over here at TOTM, the death of Dr. Miles is clearly the right outcome judged based upon the underlying antitrust ... Evaluating Leegin
"There is Little Evidence that Economic Analysis of Law Has Changed [Antitrust] in Any Noticeable Way"
Huh? This statement appears in this article by Professor Anthony D’Amato (Northwestern) on the failure of interdisciplinary scholarship in the legal academy. HT: Brian Leiter. Quite frankly, I was very surprised to see a claim like this in a paper written after 1970 or so. Even in corners of the academy hostile to economic analysis, ... "There is Little Evidence that Economic Analysis of Law Has Changed [Antitrust] in Any Noticeable Way"
Bundled Discounts, Exclusive Dealing, and Liability Rules: Thoughts on Crane and Lambert on Bundled Discounts
Dan Crane and Thom (who has promised more remarks!) have now both posted their prepared remarks for the Section 2 hearings panel on bundled discounts. Both call for bright-line, administrable liability rules for all forms of unilateral exclusionary conduct, and have important things to say about designing antitrust rules for bundled discounts. Both are worth ... Bundled Discounts, Exclusive Dealing, and Liability Rules: Thoughts on Crane and Lambert on Bundled Discounts
