Archives For antitrust

  1. Introduction

For nearly two years, the Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School has filed an impressive series of comments on foreign competition laws and regulations.  The latest GAI comment, dated March 19 (“March 19 comment”), focuses on proposed revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL) of the People’s Republic of China, currently under consideration by China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress.  The AUCL “coexists” with China’s antitrust statute, the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).  The key concern raised by the March 19 comment is that the AUCL revisions not undermine the application of sound competition law principles in the analysis of bundling (a seller’s offering of several goods as part of a single package sale).  As such, the March 19 comment notes that the best way to avoid such an outcome would be for the AUCL to avoid condemning bundling as a potential “unfair” practice, leaving bundling practices to be assessed solely under the AML.  Furthermore, the March 19 comment wisely stresses that any antitrust evaluation of bundling, whether under the AML (the preferred option) or under the AUCL, should give weight to the substantial efficiencies that bundling typically engenders.

  1. Highlights of the March 19 Comment

Specifically, the March 19 comment made the following key recommendations:

  • The National People’s Congress should be commended for having deleted Article 6 of an earlier AUCL draft, which prohibited a firm from “taking advantage of its comparative advantage position.” As explained in a March 2016 GAI comment, this provision would have undermined efficient contractual negotiations that could benefited consumer as well as producer welfare.
  • With respect to the remaining draft provisions, any provisions that relate to conduct covered by China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) be omitted entirely.
  • In particular, Article 11 (which provides that “[b]usiness operators selling goods must not bundle the sale of goods against buyers’ wishes, and must not attach other unreasonable conditions”) should be omitted in its entirety, as such conduct is already covered by Article 17(5) of the AML.
  • In the alternative, at the very least, Article 11 should be revised to adopt an effect-based approach under which bundling will be condemned only when: (1) the seller has market power in one of the goods included in the bundle sufficient to enable it to restrain trade in the market(s) for the other goods in the bundle; and (2) the anticompetitive effects outweigh any procompetitive benefits.  Such an approach would be consistent with Article 17(5) of the AML, which provides for an effects-based approach that applies only to firms with a dominant market position.
  • Bundling is ubiquitous and widely used by a variety of firms and for a variety of reasons (see here). In the vast majority of cases, package sales are “easily explained by economies of scope in production or by reductions in transaction and information costs, with an obvious benefit to the seller, the buyer or both.”   Those benefits can include lower prices for consumers, facilitate entry into new markets, reduce conflicting incentives between manufacturers and their distributors, and mitigate retailer free-riding and other types of agency problems.  Indeed (see here), “bundling can serve the same efficiency-enhancing vertical control functions as have been identified in the economic literature on tying, exclusive dealing, and other forms of vertical restraints.”
  • The potential to harm competition and generate anticompetitive effects arises only when bundling is practiced by a firm with market power in one of the goods included in the bundle. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Jefferson Parrish v. Hyde (1984), “there is nothing inherently anticompetitive about package sales,” and the fact that “a purchaser is ‘forced’ to buy a product he would not have otherwise bought even from another seller” does not imply an “adverse impact on competition.”  Rather, for bundling to harm competition there would have to be an exclusionary effect on other sellers because bundling thwarts buyers’ desire to purchase substitutes for one or more of the goods in the bundle from those other sellers to an extent that harms competition in the markets for those products (see here).
  • Moreover, because of the widespread procompetitive use of bundling, by firms without and firms with market power, making bundling per se or presumptively unlawful is likely to generate many Type I (false positive) errors which, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Verizon v. Trinko (2004), “are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.”
  1. Conclusion

In sum, the GAI’s March 19 comment does an outstanding job of highlighting the typically procompetitive nature of bundling, and of calling for an economics-based approach to the antitrust evaluation of bundling in China.  Other competition law authorities (including, for example, the European Competition Commission) could benefit from this comment as well, when they scrutinize bundling arrangements.

Thanks to Truth on the Market for the opportunity to guest blog, and to ICLE for inviting me to join as a Senior Scholar! I’m honoured to be involved with both of these august organizations.

In Brussels, the talk of the town is that the European Commission (“Commission”) is casting a new eye on the old antitrust conjecture that prophesizes a negative relationship between industry concentration and innovation. This issue arises in the context of the review of several mega-mergers in the pharmaceutical and AgTech (i.e., seed genomics, biochemicals, “precision farming,” etc.) industries.

The antitrust press reports that the Commission has shown signs of interest for the introduction of a new theory of harm: the Significant Impediment to Industry Innovation (“SIII”) theory, which would entitle the remediation of mergers on the sole ground that a transaction significantly impedes innovation incentives at the industry level. In a recent ICLE White Paper, I discuss the desirability and feasibility of the introduction of this doctrine for the assessment of mergers in R&D-driven industries.

The introduction of SIII analysis in EU merger policy would no doubt be a sea change, as compared to past decisional practice. In previous cases, the Commission has paid heed to the effects of a merger on incentives to innovate, but the assessment has been limited to the effect on the innovation incentives of the merging parties in relation to specific current or future products. The application of the SIII theory, however, would entail an assessment of a possible reduction of innovation in (i) a given industry as a whole; and (ii) not in relation to specific product applications.

The SIII theory would also be distinct from the innovation markets” framework occasionally applied in past US merger policy and now marginalized. This framework considers the effect of a merger on separate upstream “innovation markets,i.e., on the R&D process itself, not directly linked to a downstream current or future product market. Like SIII, innovation markets analysis is interesting in that the identification of separate upstream innovation markets implicitly recognises that the players active in those markets are not necessarily the same as those that compete with the merging parties in downstream product markets.

SIII is way more intrusive, however, because R&D incentives are considered in the abstract, without further obligation on the agency to identify structured R&D channels, pipeline products, and research trajectories.

With this, any case for an expansion of the Commission’s power to intervene against mergers in certain R&D-driven industries should rely on sound theoretical and empirical infrastructure. Yet, despite efforts by the most celebrated Nobel-prize economists of the past decades, the economics that underpin the relation between industry concentration and innovation incentives remains an unfathomable mystery. As Geoffrey Manne and Joshua Wright have summarized in detail, the existing literature is indeterminate, at best. As they note, quoting Rich Gilbert,

[a] careful examination of the empirical record concludes that the existing body of theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between competition and innovation “fails to provide general support for the Schumpeterian hypothesis that monopoly promotes either investment in research and development or the output of innovation” and that “the theoretical and empirical evidence also does not support a strong conclusion that competition is uniformly a stimulus to innovation.”

Available theoretical research also fails to establish a directional relationship between mergers and innovation incentives. True, soundbites from antitrust conferences suggest that the Commission’s Chief Economist Team has developed a deterministic model that could be brought to bear on novel merger policy initiatives. Yet, given the height of the intellectual Everest under discussion, we remain dubious (yet curious).

And, as noted, the available empirical data appear inconclusive. Consider a relatively concentrated industry like the seed and agrochemical sector. Between 2009 and 2016, all big six agrochemical firms increased their total R&D expenditure and their R&D intensity either increased or remained stable. Note that this has taken place in spite of (i) a significant increase in concentration among the largest firms in the industry; (ii) dramatic drop in global agricultural commodity prices (which has adversely affected several agrochemical businesses); and (iii) the presence of strong appropriability devices, namely patent rights.

This brief industry example (that I discuss more thoroughly in the paper) calls our attention to a more general policy point: prior to poking and prodding with novel theories of harm, one would expect an impartial antitrust examiner to undertake empirical groundwork, and screen initial intuitions of adverse effects of mergers on innovation through the lenses of observable industry characteristics.

At a more operational level, SIII also illustrates the difficulties of using indirect proxies of innovation incentives such as R&D figures and patent statistics as a preliminary screening tool for the assessment of the effects of the merger. In my paper, I show how R&D intensity can increase or decrease for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily correlate with an increase or decrease in the intensity of innovation. Similarly, I discuss why patent counts and patent citations are very crude indicators of innovation incentives. Over-reliance on patent counts and citations can paint a misleading picture of the parties’ strength as innovators in terms of market impact: not all patents are translated into products that are commercialised or are equal in terms of commercial value.

As a result (and unlike the SIII or innovation markets approaches), the use of these proxies as a measure of innovative strength should be limited to instances where the patent clearly has an actual or potential commercial application in those markets that are being assessed. Such an approach would ensure that patents with little or no impact on innovation competition in a market are excluded from consideration. Moreover, and on pain of stating the obvious, patents are temporal rights. Incentives to innovate may be stronger as a protected technological application approaches patent expiry. Patent counts and citations, however, do not discount the maturity of patents and, in particular, do not say much about whether the patent is far from or close to its expiry date.

In order to overcome the limitations of crude quantitative proxies, it is in my view imperative to complement an empirical analysis with industry-specific qualitative research. Central to the assessment of the qualitative dimension of innovation competition is an understanding of the key drivers of innovation in the investigated industry. In the agrochemical industry, industry structure and market competition may only be one amongst many other factors that promote innovation. Economic models built upon Arrow’s replacement effect theory – namely that a pre-invention monopoly acts as a strong disincentive to further innovation – fail to capture that successful agrochemical products create new technology frontiers.

Thus, for example, progress in crop protection products – and, in particular, in pest- and insect-resistant crops – had fuelled research investments in pollinator protection technology. Moreover, the impact of wider industry and regulatory developments on incentives to innovate and market structure should not be ignored (for example, falling crop commodity prices or regulatory restrictions on the use of certain products). Last, antitrust agencies are well placed to understand that beyond R&D and patent statistics, there is also a degree of qualitative competition in the innovation strategies that are pursued by agrochemical players.

My paper closes with a word of caution. No compelling case has been advanced to support a departure from established merger control practice with the introduction of SIII in pharmaceutical and agrochemical mergers. The current EU merger control framework, which enables the Commission to conduct a prospective analysis of the parties’ R&D incentives in current or future product markets, seems to provide an appropriate safeguard against anticompetitive transactions.

In his 1974 Nobel Prize Lecture, Hayek criticized the “scientific error” of much economic research, which assumes that intangible, correlational laws govern observable and measurable phenomena. Hayek warned that economics is like biology: both fields focus on “structures of essential complexity” which are recalcitrant to stylized modeling. Interestingly, competition was one of the examples expressly mentioned by Hayek in his lecture:

[T]he social sciences, like much of biology but unlike most fields of the physical sciences, have to deal with structures of essential complexity, i.e. with structures whose characteristic properties can be exhibited only by models made up of relatively large numbers of variables. Competition, for instance, is a process which will produce certain results only if it proceeds among a fairly large number of acting persons.

What remains from this lecture is a vibrant call for humility in policy making, at a time where some constituencies within antitrust agencies show signs of interest in revisiting the relationship between concentration and innovation. And if Hayek’s convoluted writing style is not the most accessible of all, the title captures it all: “The Pretense of Knowledge.

TOTM is pleased to welcome guest blogger Nicolas Petit, Professor of Law & Economics at the University of Liege, Belgium.

Nicolas has also recently been named a (non-resident) Senior Scholar at ICLE (joining Joshua Wright, Joanna Shepherd, and Julian Morris).

Nicolas is also (as of March 2017) a Research Professor at the University of South Australia, co-director of the Liege Competition & Innovation Institute and director of the LL.M. program in EU Competition and Intellectual Property Law. He is also a part-time advisor to the Belgian competition authority.

Nicolas is a prolific scholar specializing in competition policy, IP law, and technology regulation. Nicolas Petit is the co-author (with Damien Geradin and Anne Layne-Farrar) of EU Competition Law and Economics (Oxford University Press, 2012) and the author of Droit européen de la concurrence (Domat Montchrestien, 2013), a monograph that was awarded the prize for the best law book of the year at the Constitutional Court in France.

One of his most recent papers, Significant Impediment to Industry Innovation: A Novel Theory of Harm in EU Merger Control?, was recently published as an ICLE Competition Research Program White Paper. His scholarship is available on SSRN and he tweets at @CompetitionProf.

Welcome, Nicolas!

On March 14, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report “by an independent group of experts it commissioned to consider U.S. responses to the inappropriate use of antitrust enforcement actions worldwide to achieve industrial policy outcomes.”  (See here and here.)  I served as rapporteur for the report, which represents the views of the experts (leading academics, practitioners, and former senior officials who specialize in antitrust and international trade), not the position of the Chamber.  In particular, the report calls for the formation of a new White House-led working group.  The working group would oversee development of a strategy for dealing with the misuse of competition policy by other nations that impede international trade and competition and harm U.S. companies.  The denial of fundamental due process rights and the inappropriate extraterritorial application of competition remedies by foreign governments also would be within the purview of the working group.

The Chamber will hold a program on April 10 with members of the experts group to discuss the report and its conclusions.  The letter transmitting the report to the President and congressional leadership states as follows:

Today, nearly every nation in the world has some form of antitrust or competition law regulating business activities occurring within or substantially affecting its territory. The United States has long championed the promotion of global competition as the best way to ensure that businesses have a strong incentive to operate efficiently and innovate, and this approach has helped to fuel a strong and vibrant U.S. economy. But competition laws are not always applied in a transparent, accurate and impartial manner, and they can have significant adverse impacts far outside a country’s own borders. Certain of our major trading partners appear to have used their laws to actually harm competition by U.S. companies, protecting their own markets from foreign competition, promoting national champions, forcing technology transfers and, in some cases, denying U.S. companies fundamental due process.

Up to now, the United States has had some, but limited, success in addressing this problem. For that reason, in August of 2016, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce convened an independent, bi-partisan group of experts in trade and competition law and economics to take a fresh look and develop recommendations for a potentially more effective and better-integrated international trade and competition law strategy.

As explained by the U.S. Chamber in announcing the formation of this group,

The United States has been, and should continue to be, a global leader in the development and implementation of sound competition law and policy. . . . When competition law is applied in a discriminatory manner or relies upon non-competition factors to engineer outcomes in support of national champions or industrial policy objectives, the impact of such instances arguably goes beyond the role of U.S. antitrust agencies. The Chamber believes it is critical for the United States to develop a coordinated trade and competition law approach to international economic policy.

The International Competition Policy Expert Group (“ICPEG”) was encouraged to develop “practical and actionable steps forward that will serve to advance sound trade and competition policy.”

The Report accompanying this letter is the result of ICPEG’s work. Although the U.S. Chamber suggested the project and recruited participants, it made no effort to steer the content of ICPEG’s recommendations.

The Report is addressed specifically to the interaction of competition law and international trade law and proposes greater coordination and cooperation between them in the formulation and implementation of U.S. international trade policy. It focuses on the use of international trade and other appropriate tools to address problems in the application of foreign competition policies through 12 concrete recommendations.

Recommendations 1 through 6 urge the Trump Administration to prioritize the coordination of international competition policy through a new, cabinet-level White House working group (the “Working Group”) to be chaired by an Assistant to the President. Among other things, the Working Group would:

  • set a government-wide, high-level strategy for articulating and promoting policies to address the misuse of competition law by other nations that impede international trade and competition and harm U.S. companies;
  • undertake a 90-day review of existing and potential new trade policy tools available to address the challenge, culminating in a recommended “action list” for the President and Congress; and
  • address not only broader substantive concerns regarding the abuse of competition policy for protectionist and discriminatory purposes, but also the denial of fundamental process rights and the extraterritorial imposition of remedies that are not necessary to protect a country’s legitimate competition law objectives.

Recommendations 7 through 12 focus on steps that should be taken with international organizations and bilateral initiatives. For example, the United States should consider:

  • the feasibility and value of expanding the World Trade Organization’s regular assessment of each member government by the Trade Policy Review Body to include national competition policies and encourage the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to undertake specific peer reviews of national procedural or substantive policies, including of non-OECD countries;
  • encouraging the OECD and/or other multilateral bodies to adopt a code enumerating transparent, accurate, and impartial procedures; and
  • promoting the application of agreements under which nations would cooperate with and take into account legitimate interests of other nations affected by a competition investigation.

The competition and trade law issues addressed in the Report are complex and the consequences of taking any particular action vis-a-vis another country must be carefully considered in light of a number of factors beyond the scope of this Report. ICPEG does not take a view on the actions of any particular country nor propose specific steps with respect to any actual dispute or matter. In addition, reasonable minds can differ on ICPEG’s assessment and recommendations. But we hope that this Report will prompt appropriate prioritization of the issues it addresses and serve as the basis for the further development of a successful policy and action plan and improved coordination and cooperation between U.S. competition and trade agencies.

The antitrust industry never sleeps – it is always hard at work seeking new business practices to scrutinize, eagerly latching on to any novel theory of anticompetitive harm that holds out the prospect of future investigations.  In so doing, antitrust entrepreneurs choose, of course, to ignore Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase’s warning that “[i]f an economist finds something . . . that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation.  And as in this field we are rather ignorant, the number of ununderstandable practices tends to be rather large, and the reliance on monopoly explanations frequent.”  Ambitious antitrusters also generally appear oblivious to the fact that since antitrust is an administrative system subject to substantial error and transaction costs in application (see here), decision theory counsels that enforcers should proceed with great caution before adopting novel untested theories of competitive harm.

The latest example of this regrettable phenomenon is the popular new theory that institutional investors’ common ownership of minority shares in competing firms may pose serious threats to vigorous market competition (see here, for example).  If such investors’ shareholdings are insufficient to control or substantially influence the strategies employed by the competing firms, what is the precise mechanism by which this occurs?  At the very least, this question should give enforcers pause (and cause them to carefully examine both the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the common ownership story) before they charge ahead as knights errant seeking to vanquish new financial foes.  Yet it appears that at least some antitrust enforcers have been wasting no time in seeking to factor common ownership concerns into their modes of analysis.  (For example, The European Commission in at least one case presented a modified Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (MHHI) analysis to account for the effects of common shareholding by institutional investors, as part of a statement of objections to a proposed merger, see here.)

A recent draft paper by Bates White economists Daniel P. O’Brien and Keith Waehrer raises major questions about recent much heralded research (reported in three studies dealing with executive compensation, airlines, and banking) that has been cited to raise concerns about common minority shareholdings’ effects on competition.  The draft paper’s abstract argues that the theory underlying these concerns is insufficiently developed, and that there are serious statistical flaws in the empirical work that purports to show a relationship between price and common ownership:

“Recent empirical research purports to show that common ownership by institutional investors harms competition even when all financial holdings are minority interests. This research has received a great deal of attention, leading to both calls for and actual changes in antitrust policy. This paper examines the research on this subject to date and finds that its conclusions regarding the effects of minority shareholdings on competition are not well established. Without prejudging what more rigorous empirical work might show, we conclude that researchers and policy authorities are getting well ahead of themselves in drawing policy conclusions from the research to date. The theory of partial ownership does not yield a specific relationship between price and the MHHI. In addition, the key explanatory variable in the emerging research – the MHHI – is an endogenous measure of concentration that depends on both common ownership and market shares. Factors other than common ownership affect both price and the MHHI, so the relationship between price and the MHHI need not reflect the relationship between price and common ownership. Thus, regressions of price on the MHHI are likely to show a relationship even if common ownership has no actual causal effect on price. The instrumental variable approaches employed in this literature are not sufficient to remedy this issue. We explain these points with reference to the economic theory of partial ownership and suggest avenues for further research.”

In addition to pinpointing deficiencies in existing research, O’Brien and Waehrer also summarize serious negative implications for the financial sector that could stem from the aggressive antitrust pursuit of partial ownership for the financial sector – a new approach that would be at odds with longstanding antitrust practice (footnote citations deleted):

“While it is widely accepted that common ownership can have anticompetitive effects when the owners have control over at least one of the firms they own (a complete merger is a special case), antitrust authorities historically have taken limited interest in common ownership by minority shareholders whose control seems to be limited to voting rights. Thus, if the empirical findings and conclusions in the emerging research are correct and robust, they could have dramatic implications for the antitrust analysis of mergers and acquisitions. The findings could be interpreted to suggest that antitrust authorities should scrutinize not only situations in which a common owner of competing firms control at least one of the entities it owns, but also situations in which all of the common owner’s shareholdings are small minority positions. As [previously] noted, . . . such a policy shift is already occurring.

Institutional investors (e.g., mutual funds) frequently take positions in multiple firms in an industry in order to offer diversified portfolios to retail investors at low transaction costs. A change in antitrust or regulatory policy toward these investments could have significant negative implications for the types of investments currently available to retail investors. In particular, a recent proposal to step up antitrust enforcement in this area would seem to require significant changes to the size or composition of many investment funds that are currently offered.

Given the potential policy implications of this research and the less than obvious connections between small minority ownership interests and anticompetitive price effects, it is important to be particularly confident in the analysis and empirical findings before drawing strong policy conclusions. In our view, this requires a valid empirical test that permits causal inferences about the effects of common ownership on price. In addition, the empirical findings and their interpretation should be consistent with the observed behavior of firms and investors in the economic and legal environments in which they operate.

We find that the airline, banking, and compensation papers [that deal with minority shareholding] fall short of these criteria.”

In sum, at the very least, a substantial amount of further work is called for before significant enforcement resources are directed to common minority shareholder investigations, lest competitively non-problematic investment holdings be chilled.  More generally, the trendy antitrust pursuit of common minority shareholdings threatens to interfere inappropriately in investment decisions of institutional investors and thereby undermine efficiency.  Given the great significance of institutional investment for vibrant capital markets and a growing, dynamic economy, the negative economic welfare consequences of such unwarranted meddling would likely swamp any benefits that might accrue from an occasional meritorious prosecution.  One may hope that the Trump Administration will seriously weigh those potential consequences as it examines the minority shareholding issue, in deciding upon its antitrust policy priorities.

  1. Overview

A‌merica’s antitrust laws have long held a special status in the ‌federal statutory hierarchy.  The Supreme Court of the United States, for example, famously stated that the “[a]ntitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise.”  Thus, when considering the qualifications of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nominee’s views (if any) on antitrust are unquestionably of interest.  Such an assessment is particularly significant today, given the fact that the Court has had only one remaining antitrust expert (Justice Breyer, who taught antitrust at Harvard), since the sad demise of Justice Scalia (author of the landmark Trinko opinion on the limits of monopolization law).

Fortunately, we know a great deal about the antitrust perspective of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court.  Judge Gorsuch authored several well-reasoned and highly persuasive antitrust opinions as a Tenth Circuit judge, which show him to be respectful of Supreme Court precedent and fully aware of the nuances of modern antitrust analysis.  This is not surprising, since Judge Gorsuch in recent years has taught antitrust law at the University of Colorado Law School.  In addition, he had exposure to antitrust matters as Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General during the George W. Bush Administration.  What’s more, he worked on major antitrust cases as an associate and then a partner at the Kellogg Huber law firm (see here).  Recent commentaries by highly respected antitrust lawyers on Judge Gorsuch’s antitrust jurisprudence manifest great respect for his mastery of the field (see, for example, here and here) – and put to shame a non-antitrust lawyer’s jejeune and misleading “hit piece” on Judge Gorsuch’s antitrust record (see here) that displays a woeful ignorance of the nature of antitrust analysis (see, for example, Ed Whelan’s devastating critique of that screed, here).

In short, Judge Gorsuch is extremely well-versed in antitrust and thus ideally positioned to make important contributions to the Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence, should he be confirmed.  A quick evaluation of Judge Gorsuch’s decisions in antitrust cases confirms this conclusion.

  1. Judge Gorsuch’s Antitrust Opinions

Let’s take a look at three antitrust opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch, two of which deal with refusals to deal, and one of which concerns municipal antitrust immunity.  All three decisions show an appreciation for the underlying economic efficiency rationale that undergirds modern mainstream antitrust analysis, consistent with Supreme Court case law pronouncements.

a.  Four Corners Nephrology, Associates, PC v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango, 582 F.3d 1216 (10th 2009). To provide Durango, Colorado, residents and Southern Ute Indian tribe members with greater access to kidney dialysis and other nephrology services, Mercy Medical Center, a non-profit hospital, together with the tribe, sought to entice Dr. Mark Bevan to join the hospital’s active staff.  When Dr. Bevan declined, the hospital hired somebody else.  To convince that physician and others to settle in Durango, and aware that starting a nephrology practice was likely to prove unprofitable for the foreseeable future, the hospital and tribe agreed to underwrite up to $2.5 million in losses they expected the practice to incur.  To protect its investment, Mercy made its new practice the exclusive provider of nephrology services at the hospital.

Dr. Bevan sued, contending that Mercy’s refusal to deal with other nephrologists, including himself, amounted to the monopolization, or attempted monopolization, of the market for physician nephrology services in the Durango area.  The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital.

Judge Gorsuch’s Sixth Circuit panel opinion affirmed, for two reasons.  First, he held that the hospital had no antitrust duty to share its facilities with Dr. Bevan at the expense of its own nephrology practice.  It stressed that in demanding access to Mercy’s facilities, Dr. Bevan sought to share, not to undo, the hospital’s putative monopoly.  According to Judge Gorsuch, that is not what the antitrust laws are about:  they seek to advance competition, not advantage competitors.  Judge Gorsuch deftly distinguished the Supreme Court’s 1985 Aspen Skiing decision, which upheld a Sherman Act Section 2 refusal to deal claim based on a monopolist ski resort’s discontinuation of a joint ticketing arrangement with a smaller resort (a decision deemed “at or near the outer boundary of §2 liability” in Justice Scalia’s Trinko opinion).  He noted that defendant terminated a profitable long-term contractual relationship in Aspen Skiing, in order to achieve long-term anticompetitive goals.  In the instant case, however, the hospital was seeking to avoid an unprofitable short-term relationship with the plaintiff doctor – an action consistent with legal competition on the merits, as in TrinkoSecond, Judge Gorsuch held that plaintiff had suffered no antitrust injury, because it was seeking to share in monopoly profits, not to undo a monopoly and thereby benefit consumers.

Judge Gorsuch’s careful reasoning in Four Corners adroitly cabined Aspen Skiing’s problematic reasoning.  Future courts could benefit from his approach to help rein in inappropriate antitrust attacks on refusals to deal that manifest competition on the merits.

b.  Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 731 F.3d 1064 (10th 2013).  Novell produced office software, including WordPerfect, Microsoft Word’s leading rival in word processing applications.  Microsoft initially gave independent software vendors, including Novell, pre-release access to design information which would enable them to produce applications for Windows 95.  Microsoft subsequently changed its policy, however, denying such access prior to the release of Windows 95.  This decision significantly delayed, but did not preclude, third party companies from developing Windows 95 applications.  Novell sued Microsoft, alleging that Microsoft’s actions helped it maintain its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems.  The district court granted judgment for Microsoft as a matter of law, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

In his opinion, Judge Gorsuch framed the standard of liability for illegal monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in a decision-theoretic manner that would gladden the hearts of law and economics mavens:  “the question . . . is whether, based on the evidence and experience derived from past cases, the conduct at issue before us has little or no value beyond the capacity to protect the monopolist’s market power—bearing in mind the risk of false positives (and negatives) any determination on the question of liability might invite, and the limits on the administrative capacities of courts to police market terms and transactions.”

Applying this set of general principles in light of the case law and the facts presented, Judge Gorsuch ably dissected and rejected Novell’s theories of antitrust harm, explaining that Novell’s claims did not squeeze “through the narrow needle of [antitrust] refusal to deal doctrine.”  Specifically, Microsoft’s actions failed to pass Aspen Skiing muster.  Even though “[a] voluntary and profitable relationship clearly existed between Microsoft and Novell[,]. . . Novell . . .  presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Microsoft’s discontinuation of this arrangement suggested a willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, let alone in a manner that was irrational but for its tendency to harm competition.”  The court also rejected Novell’s alternative claim of an antitrust violation based on an “affirmative” act of interference with a rival rather than on a refusal to deal.  As Judge Gorsuch explained, “neither Trinko nor Aspen Skiing suggested this is enough to evade their profit sacrifice test, and we refuse to do so either.  Whether one chooses to call a monopolist’s refusal to deal with a rival an act or omission, interference or withdrawal of assistance, the substance is the same”.  Finally, Novell’s third theory, that Microsoft acted deceptively when it gave pretextual reasons for withdrawing key compatibility information from Novell, similarly proved unavailing.  According to Judge Gorsuch, “[deception] . . . wasn’t the cause of Novell’s injury or any possible harm to consumers—Microsoft’s refusal to deal was. . . .  Even if Microsoft had behaved [non-deceptively,] just as Novell sa[id] it should have, it would have helped Novell not at all.”

Novell, like Kay Electric, reflects Judge Gorsuch’s understanding of the importance of curtailing inappropriate antitrust attacks on the right not to deal with competitors.  It also manifests his keen appreciation for protecting a successful firm’s market-driven economic incentives from being undermined by antitrust attacks.  Finally, and most significantly, this decision highlights Judge Gorsuch’s understanding that decision theory is of central importance in administering a rules-based antitrust legal system (see here for a discussion of the role of decision theory in Roberts Court antitrust decisions).

c.  Kay Electric Cooperative v. City of Newkirk, Oklahoma, 647 F.3d 1039 (10th 2011). In this case, the Tenth Circuit, per Judge Gorsuch, reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of an antitrust suit filed against a municipal electricity provider.  Kay, an Oklahoma rural electric cooperative, offered to provide electricity to a new jail being built in an area just outside the city boundaries of Newkirk.  The City of Newkirk responded by annexing the area and issuing its own service offer.  As Judge Gorsuch pithily explained, “Kay’s offer was much the better but the jail still elected to buy electricity from Newkirk.  Why?  Because Newkirk is the only provider of sewage services in the area and it refused to provide any sewage services to the jail – that is, unless the jail also bought the city’s electricity.  Finding themselves stuck between a rock and a pile of sewage, the operators of the jail reluctantly went with the city’s package deal.”  Kay responded by suing Newkirk for unlawful tying and attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The district court found Newkirk “immune” from liability as a matter of law, and Kay appealed.

Judge Gorsuch surveyed the Supreme Court’s confusing case law on state action antitrust immunity, which shields state-sanctioned restraints of trade from Sherman Act scrutiny.  He noted that “though it’s hard to see a way to reconcile all of the [Supreme] Court’s competing statements in this area, we can say with certainty this much – a municipality surely lacks antitrust ‘immunity’ unless it can bear the burden of showing that its challenged conduct was at least a foreseeable (if not explicit) result of state legislation [emphasis in the original].”  The judge brilliantly parsed the “muddled” jurisprudence and found three “bright lines” that were “enough to allow us to dispose of this appeal with confidence.”  First, “a state’s grant of a traditional corporate chapter to a municipality isn’t enough to make the municipality’s subsequent anticompetitive conduct foreseeable.”  Second, “the fact that a state may have authorized some forms of municipal anticompetitive conduct isn’t enough to make all forms of anticompetitive conduct foreseeable [emphasis in the original].”  Third, “when asking whether the state has authorized the municipality’s anticompetitive conduct we look to and preference the most specific direction issued by the state legislature on the subject.”  Applying these rules to the facts at hand (including relevant Oklahoma statutes), the judge concluded “that it quickly becomes clear that Newkirk enjoys no immunity.”

Judge Gorsuch’s Kay Electric opinion displays great facility in reconciling respect for antitrust federalism with the Sherman Act’s goal of rooting out unreasonable constraints on free market competition.  His concise ruling ably cuts through the complexities of the opaque (to be generous) antitrust state action doctrine decisions to identify clear administrable principles that, if broadly adopted, would reduce uncertainty regarding the legal status of anticompetitive municipal conduct.  In short, if Kay Electric is any indication, Judge Gorsuch may be just the jurist needed to bring greater (and badly needed) clarity to the Supreme Court’s treatment of state action controversies.

  1. Conclusion

In sum, Judge Gorsuch’s antitrust opinions reflect a sound grounding in law and economics and decision theory, combined with a respect for Supreme Court precedent, careful attention to traditional judicial craftsmanship, and a respect for the appropriate contours of antitrust federalism.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence would unquestionably benefit by having Judge Gorsuch join the Court.  For this and for so many other reasons (see, for example, here), Judge Gorsuch merits swift confirmation by the Senate.

  1. Background

Some of the most pernicious and welfare-inimical anticompetitive activity stems from the efforts of firms to use governmental regulation to raise rivals’ costs or totally exclude them from the market (see, for example, here).  The surest cure to such economic harm is, of course, the elimination or reform of anticompetitive government laws and regulations, but that is hard to do, given the existence of well-entrenched interest groups who have an interest in lobbying to protect their special legally-bestowed privileges.

A somewhat different potential limitation on effective competition associated with government arises from the invocation of governmental processes – in particular, judicial and regulatory filings and petitions – to harm competitors and maintain a protected position in the marketplace.  Dealing effectively with this problem presents its own set of difficulties.  Protecting the right to seek governmental redress consistent with existing rules is a key part of our system of limited government and the rule of law.  Indeed, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically protects “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, indicating that government must tread carefully indeed before taking any action that could be deemed as a curtailment of such petitioning.  This has particular salience for antitrust, as Scalia Law School Professor David Bernstein has explained in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution:

[T]he right to petition . . . continues to have some independent weight.  Most importantly, under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, an effort to influence the exercise of government power, even for the purpose of gaining an anticompetitive advantage, does not create liability under the antitrust laws.  Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. (1961); United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington (1965). The Supreme Court initially adopted this doctrine under the guise of freedom of speech, but it more precisely finds its constitutional home in the right to petition. Unlike speech, which can often be punished in the antitrust context, as when corporate officers verbally agree to collude, the right to petition confers absolute immunity on efforts to influence government policy in a noncorrupt way.

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not, however, totally preclude antitrust enforcers from scrutinizing filings designed to undermine competition.  If a private party is using petitioning as a mere “sham” to impose harm on competitors, without regard to the merits of its claims, Noerr immunity does not apply.  In California Motor Transport v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), the Supreme Court held that access to the courts and administrative agencies is an aspect of the right to petition, and hence Noerr’s protection generally extends to administrative and judicial proceedings, as well as to efforts to influence legislative and executive action.  Nevertheless, in so holding, the California Motor Transport Court determined that Noerr did not shield defendants’ intervention in licensing proceedings involving their competitors, because the intervention did not stem from a good faith effort to enforce the law, but rather was solely aimed at imposing costs on and harassing the competitors.  Subsequently, however, in Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (PRE), the Supreme Court clarified that a high hurdle must be surmounted to demonstrate that petitioning through litigation is a “sham,” namely that (1) the lawsuit in question is “objectively baseless” (“no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits”) and (2) the suit must reflect a subjective intent to use the governmental process – as opposed to the outcome of that process – as an anticompetitive weapon.

In 2006, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a staff report on how to maximize competition values embodied in the antitrust laws while fully respecting the core values identified in Noerr when analyzing three types of conduct:  filings that seek only a ministerial government response, material misrepresentations, and repetitive petitioning.  More specifically, the report recommended that the FTC seek appropriate opportunities, in litigation or amicus curiae filings, to:  (1) clarify that conduct protected by Noerr does not extend to filings, outside of the political arena, that seek no more than a ministerial government act; (2) clarify that conduct protected by Noerr does not extend to misrepresentations, outside of the political arena, that involve material misrepresentations to government bodies in the regulatory context (such as government standard setting and drug approval proceedings, for example); and (3) clarify that conduct protected by Noerr does not extend to patterns of repetitive petitioning, outside of the political arena, filed without regard to merit that employ government processes, rather than the outcome of those processes, to harm competitors in an attempt to suppress competition.

Since the issuance of the 2006 staff report, however, the FTC has not aggressively pursued litigation to narrow the scope of the Noerr doctrine (perhaps reflecting at least in part the difficulties attending the bringing of good cases, in light of PRE’s requirements).  Rather, the Commission’s efforts to curb antitrust immunity have centered primarily on constraining the reach of the “state action” doctrine (anticompetitive conduct flying under the color of state authority), an area in which it has achieved some notable successes (see, for example, here).   

  1. The FTC’s February 2017 Shire Viropharma Injunctive Action

There is at least one indication, however, that the FTC may be turning anew to the problem of anticompetitive petitioning.  On February 7, 2017, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court charging Shire ViroPharma Inc. (ViroPharma) with violating the antitrust laws by abusing government processes to delay generic competition to its branded prescription drug, Vancocin HCl Capsules.  The complaint alleges that because of ViroPharma’s actions, consumers and other purchasers paid hundreds of millions of dollars more for their medication.

Vancocin Capsules are used to treat C.difficile-associated diarrhea, or CDAD, a sometimes life-threatening bacterial infection. According to the complaint, Vancocin Capsules are not reasonably interchangeable with any other medications used to treat CDAD, and no other medication constrained ViroPharma’s pricing of Vancocin Capsules. After ViroPharma acquired the rights to Vancocin Capsules in 2004, it raised the price of the drug significantly and continued to do so through 2011.

The FTC alleges that to maintain its monopoly, ViroPharma waged a campaign of serial, repetitive, and unsupported filings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and courts to delay the FDA’s approval of generic Vancocin Capsules, and exclude competition. According to the FTC, ViroPharma submitted 43 filings with the FDA and filed three lawsuits against the FDA between 2006 and 2012. The FTC asserts that the number and frequency of ViroPharma’s petitioning at the FDA are many multiples beyond that by any drug company related to any other drug.  The FTC further claims that ViroPharma knew that it was the FDA’s practice to refrain from approving any generic applications until it resolved all pending relevant “citizen petition” filings.  According to the FTC, Viropharma intended for its serial filings to delay the approval of generics, and thus forestall competition and price reductions.

The FTC seeks a court order permanently prohibiting ViroPharma from submitting repetitive and baseless filings with the FDA and the courts, and from similar and related conduct as well as any other necessary equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement.

  1. Conclusion

Win or lose, the FTC is to be commended for seeking a federal court clarification of what constitutes “baseless” petitioning for purposes of Noerr.  As numerous scholars have pointed out, the Noerr “petitioning” doctrine is riddled with confusion (see, for example, here), and Supreme Court attention to this topic may once again be ripe.  The most cost-effective way to reduce the economic burden of anticompetitive petitioning, however, may be not through litigation, which is time-consuming and uncertain (although it may play a useful role), but rather through regulatory reform that reduces the opportunities for manipulating overly complex regulatory systems in an anticompetitive fashion.  Stay tuned.

 

The American Bar Association Antitrust Section’s Presidential Transition Report (“Report”), released on January 24, provides a helpful practitioners’ perspective on the state of federal antitrust and consumer protection enforcement, and propounds a variety of useful recommendations for marginal improvements in agency practices, particularly with respect to improving enforcement transparency and reducing enforcement-related costs.  It also makes several good observations on the interplay of antitrust and regulation, and commendably notes the importance of promoting U.S. leadership in international antitrust policy.  This is all well and good.  Nevertheless, the Report’s discussion of various substantive topics poses a number of concerns that seriously detract from its utility, which I summarize below.  Accordingly, I recommend that the new Administration accord respectful attention to the Report’s discussion of process improvements, and international developments, but ignore the Report’s discussion of novel substantive antitrust theories, vertical restraints, and intellectual property.

1.  The Big Picture: Too Much Attention Paid to Antitrust “Possibility Theorems”

In discussing substance, the Report trots out all the theoretical stories of possible anticompetitive harm raised over the last decade or so, such as “product hopping” (“minor” pharmaceutical improvements based on new patents that are portrayed as exclusionary devices), “contracts that reference rivals” (discount schemes that purportedly harm competition by limiting sourcing from a supplier’s rivals), “hold-ups” by patentees (demands by patentees for “overly high” royalties on their legitimate property rights), and so forth.  What the Report ignores is the costs that these new theories impose on the competitive system, and, in particular, on incentives to innovate.  These new theories often are directed at innovative novel business practices that may have the potential to confer substantial efficiency benefits – including enhanced innovation and economic growth – on the American economy.  Unproven theories of harm may disincentivize such practices and impose a hidden drag on the economy.  (One is reminded of Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase’s lament (see here) that “[i]f an economist finds something . . . that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation. And as in this field we are rather ignorant, the number of ununderstandable practices tends to be rather large, and the reliance on monopoly explanations frequent.”)  Although the Report generally avoids taking a position on these novel theories, the lip service it gives implicitly encourages federal antitrust agency investigations designed to deploy these shiny new antitrust toys.  This in turn leads to a misallocation of resources (unequivocally harmful activity, especially hard core cartel conduct, merits the highest priority) and generates potentially high error and administrative costs, at odds with a sensible decision-theoretic approach to antitrust administration (see here and here).  In sum, the Trump Administration should pay no attention to the Report’s commentary on new substantive antitrust theories.

2.  Vertical Contractual Restraints

The Report inappropriately (and, in my view, amazingly) suggests that antitrust enforcers should give serious attention to vertical contractual restraints:

Recognizing that the current state of RPM law in both minimum and maximum price contexts requires sophisticated balancing of pro- and anti-competitive tendencies, the dearth of guidance from the Agencies in the form of either guidelines or litigated cases leaves open important questions in an area of law that can have a direct and substantial impact on consumers. For example, it would be beneficial for the Agencies to provide guidance on how they think about balancing asserted quality and service benefits that can flow from maintaining minimum prices for certain types of products against the potential that RPM reduces competition to the detriment of consumers. Perhaps equally important, the Agencies should provide guidance on how they would analyze the vigor of interbrand competition in markets where some producers have restricted intrabrand competition among distributors of their products.    

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) largely have avoided bringing pure contractual vertical restraints cases in recent decades, and for good reason.  Although vertical restraints theoretically might be used to facilitate horizontal collusion (say, to enforce a distributors’ cartel) or anticompetitive exclusion (say, to enable a dominant manufacturer to deny rivals access to efficient distribution), such cases appear exceedingly rare.  Real world empirical research suggests vertical restraints generally are procompetitive (see, for example, here).  What’s more, a robust theoretical literature supports efficiency-based explanations for vertical restraints (see, for example, here), as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 Leegin decision.  An aggressive approach to vertical restraints enforcement would ignore this economic learning, likely yield high error costs, and dissuade businesses from considering efficient vertical contracts, to the detriment of social welfare.  Moreover, antitrust prosecutorial resources are limited, and optimal policy indicates they should be directed to the most serious competitive problems.  The Report’s references to “open important questions” and the need for “guidance” on vertical restraints appears oblivious to these realities.  Furthermore, the Report’s mention of “balancing” interbrand versus intrabrand effects reflects a legalistic approach to vertical contracts that is at odds with modern economic analysis.

In short, the Report’s discussion of vertical restraints should be accorded no weight by new enforcers, and antitrust prosecutors would be well advised not to include vertical restraints investigations on their list of priorities.

3.  IP Issues

The Report recommends that the DOJ and FTC (“Agencies”) devote substantial attention to issues related to the unilateral exercise of patent rights, “holdup” and “holdout”:

We . . . recommend that the Agencies gather reliable and credible information on—and propose a framework for evaluating—holdup and holdout, and the circumstances in which either may be anticompetitive. The Agencies are particularly well-suited to gather evidence and assess competitive implications of such practices, which could then inform policymaking, advocacy, and potential cases. The Agencies’ perspectives could contribute valuable insights to the larger antitrust community.

Gathering information with an eye to bringing potential antitrust cases involving the unilateral exercise of patent rights through straightforward patent licensing involves a misapplication of resources.  As Professor Josh Wright and Judge Douglas Ginsburg, among others, have pointed out, antitrust is not well-suited to dealing with disputes between patentees and licensees over licensing rates – private law remedies are best designed to handle such contractual controversies (see, for example, here).  Furthermore, using antitrust law to depress returns to unilateral patent licenses threatens to reduce dynamic efficiency and create disincentives for innovation (see FTC Commissioner (and currently Acting Chairman) Maureen Ohlhausen’s thoughtful article, here).  The Report regrettably ignores this important research.  The Report instead should have called upon the FTC and DOJ to drop their ill-conceived recent emphasis on unilateral patent exploitation, and to focus instead on problems of collusion among holders of competing patented technologies.

That is not all.  The Report’s “suggest[ion] that the [federal antitrust] Agencies consider offering guidance to the ITC [International Trade Commission] about potential SEP holdup and holdout” is a recipe for weakening legitimate U.S. patent rights that are threatened by foreign infringers.  American patentees already face challenges from over a decade’s worth of Supreme Court decisions that have constrained the value of their holdings.  As I have explained elsewhere, efforts to limit the ability of the ITC to issue exclusion orders in the face of infringement overseas further diminishes the value of American patents and disincentivizes innovation (see here).  What’s worse, the Report is not only oblivious of this reality, it goes out of its way to “put a heavy thumb on the scale” in favor of patent infringers, stating (footnote omitted):

If the ITC were to issue exclusion orders to SEP owners under circumstances in which injunctions would not be appropriate under the [Supreme Court’s] eBay standard [for patent litigation], the inconsistency could induce SEP owners to strategically use the ITC in an effort to achieve settlements of patent disputes on terms that might require payment of supracompetitive royalties.  Though it is not likely how likely this is or whether the risk has led to supracompetitive prices in the past, this dynamic could lead to holdup by SEP owners and unconscionably higher royalties.

This commentary on the possibility of “unconscionable” royalties reads like a press release authored by patent infringers.  In fact, there is a dearth of evidence of hold-up, let alone hold-up-related “unconscionable” royalties.  Moreover, it is most decidedly not the role of antitrust enforcers to rule on the “unconscionability” of the unilateral pricing decision of a patent holder (apparently the Report writers forgot to consult Justice Scalia’s Trinko opinion, which emphasizes the right of a monopolist to charge a monopoly price).  Furthermore, not only is this discussion wrong-headed, it flies in the face of concerns expressed elsewhere in the Report regarding ill-advised mandates imposed by foreign antitrust enforcement authorities.  (Recently certain foreign enforcers have shown themselves all too willing to countenance “excessive” patent royalty claims in cases involving American companies).

Finally, other IP-related references in the Report similarly show a lack of regulatory humility.  Theoretical harms from the disaggregation of complementary patents, and from “product hopping” patents (see above), among other novel practices, implicitly encourage the FTC and DOJ (not to mention private parties) to consider bringing cases based on expansive theories of liability, without regard to the costs of the antitrust system as a whole (including the chilling of innovative business activity).  Such cases might benefit the antitrust bar, but prioritizing them would be at odds with the key policy objective of antitrust, the promotion of consumer welfare.

 

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) regrettable January 17 filing of a federal court injunctive action against Qualcomm, in the waning days of the Obama Administration, is a blow to its institutional integrity and well-earned reputation as a top notch competition agency.

Stripping away the semantic gloss, the heart of the FTC’s complaint is that Qualcomm is charging smartphone makers “too much” for licenses needed to practice standardized cellular communications technologies – technologies that Qualcomm developed. This complaint flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s teaching in Verizon v. Trinko that a monopolist has every right to charge monopoly prices and thereby enjoy the full fruits of its legitimately obtained monopoly. But Qualcomm is more than one exceptionally ill-advised example of prosecutorial overreach, that (hopefully) will fail and end up on the scrapheap of unsound federal antitrust initiatives. The Qualcomm complaint undoubtedly will be cited by aggressive foreign competition authorities as showing that American antitrust enforcement now recognizes mere “excessive pricing” as a form of “monopoly abuse” – therefore justifying “excessive pricing” cases that are growing like topsy abroad, especially in East Asia.

Particularly unfortunate is the fact that the Commission chose to authorize the filing by a 2-1 vote, which ignored Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen’s pithy dissent – a rarity in cases involving the filing of federal lawsuits. Commissioner Ohlhausen’s analysis skewers the legal and economic basis for the FTC’s complaint, and her summary, which includes an outstanding statement of basic antitrust enforcement principles, is well worth noting (footnote omitted):

My practice is not to write dissenting statements when the Commission, against my vote, authorizes litigation. That policy reflects several principles. It preserves the integrity of the agency’s mission, recognizes that reasonable minds can differ, and supports the FTC’s staff, who litigate demanding cases for consumers’ benefit. On the rare occasion when I do write, it has been to avoid implying that I disagree with the complaint’s theory of liability.

I do not depart from that policy lightly. Yet, in the Commission’s 2-1 decision to sue Qualcomm, I face an extraordinary situation: an enforcement action based on a flawed legal theory (including a standalone Section 5 count) that lacks economic and evidentiary support, that was brought on the eve of a new presidential administration, and that, by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide. These extreme circumstances compel me to voice my objections.

Let us hope that President Trump makes it an early and high priority to name Commissioner Ohlhausen Acting Chairman of the FTC. The FTC simply cannot afford any more embarrassing and ill-reasoned antitrust initiatives that undermine basic principles of American antitrust enforcement and may be used by foreign competition authorities to justify unwarranted actions against American firms. Maureen Ohlhausen can be counted upon to provide needed leadership in moving the Commission in a sounder direction.

P.S. I have previously published a commentary at this site regarding an unwarranted competition law Statement of Objections directed at Google by the European Commission, a matter which did not involve patent licensing. And for a more general critique of European competition policy along these lines, see here.

During 2016 it became fashionable in certain circles to decry “lax” merger enforcement and to call for a more aggressive merger enforcement policy (see, for example, the American Antitrust Institute’s September 2016 paper on competition policy, critiqued by me in this blog post).  Interventionists promoting “tougher” merger enforcement have cited Professor John Kwoka’s 2015 book, Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies in support of the proposition that U.S. antitrust enforcers have been “excessively tolerant” in analyzing proposed mergers.

In that regard, a recent paper by two outstanding FTC economists (Michael Vita and David Osinski) is well worth noting.  It makes a strong (and, in my view, persuasive) case that Kwoka’s research is fatally flawed.  The following excerpt, drawn from the introduction and conclusion of the paper (Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies:  A Critical Review), merits close attention:

John Kwoka’s recently published Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies (2015) has received considerable attention from both antitrust practitioners and academics. The book features a meta-analysis of retrospective studies of consummated mergers, joint ventures, and other horizontal arrangements. Based on summary statistics derived from these studies, Kwoka concludes that domestic antitrust agencies are excessively tolerant in their merger enforcement; that merger remedies are ineffective at mitigating market power; and that merger enforcement has become increasingly lax over time. We review both his evidence and his empirical methods, and conclude that serious deficiencies in both undermine the basis for these conclusions. . . .

We sympathize with the goal of using retrospective analyses to assess the performance of the antitrust agencies and to identify possible improvements. Unfortunately, Kwoka has drawn inferences and reached conclusions about contemporary merger enforcement policy that are unjustified by his data and his methods. His critique of negotiated remedies in merger cases relies on a small number of transactions; a close reading reveals that a number of them are silent on the effectiveness of the associated remedies. His data sample lacks diversity, relying heavily on a small number of studies conducted on a small and unrepresentative set of industries. His statistical methodology departs from well-established techniques for conducting meta-analyses, making it impossible for readers to assess the strength of his evidence using standard statistical tools. His conclusions about the growing permissiveness of enforcement policies lack substantiation. Overall, we are unpersuaded that his evidence can support such broad and general policy conclusions.

Hopefully, the new leadership at the Federal Trade Commission and at the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will carefully scrutinize this and other recent research on mergers in devising their merger enforcement policy.  Additional research on the effects of mergers, including an evaluation of their static and dynamic efficiencies, is highly warranted.  Enforcers should not lose sight of the fact that disincentivizing efficient mergers could undermine a vibrant market for corporate control in general, as well as precluding the net creation of economic surplus in specific cases.