Finding your way in the seeds/agro-chem mergers labyrinth
The recently notified mergers in the seed and agro-chem industry raise difficult questions that competition authorities around the world would need to tackle in the following months. Because of the importance of their markets’ size, the decision reached by US and EU competition authorities would be particularly significant for the merging parties, but the perspective ... Finding your way in the seeds/agro-chem mergers labyrinth
Innovation trends in agriculture and their implications for M&A analysis
The US agriculture sector has been experiencing consolidation at all levels for decades, even as the global ag economy has been growing and becoming more diverse. Much of this consolidation has been driven by technological changes that created economies of scale, both at the farm level and beyond. Likewise, the role of technology has changed ... Innovation trends in agriculture and their implications for M&A analysis
Patents and mergers
How should patents be taken into consideration in merger analysis? When does the combining of patent portfolios lead to anticompetitive concerns? Two principles should guide these inquiries. First, as the Supreme Court held in its 2006 decision Independent Ink, ownership of a patent does not confer market power. This ruling came in the context of ... Patents and mergers
Contestability theory in the real world
Though concentration seems to be an increasingly popular metric for discussing antitrust policy (a backward move in my opinion, given the theoretical work by Harold Demsetz and others many years ago in this area), contestability is still the standard for evaluating antitrust issues from an economic standpoint. Contestability theory, most closely associated with William Baumol, ... Contestability theory in the real world
Understanding innovation markets in antitrust analysis
Today, three of the largest proposed mergers — Bayer/Monsanto, Dow/Dupont, and ChemChina/Syngenta — face scrutiny in both the U.S. and Europe over concerns that the mergers will slow innovation in crop biotechnology and crop protection. The incorporation of innovation effects in the antitrust analysis of these agricultural/biotech mergers is quickly becoming more mainstream in both the U.S. ... Understanding innovation markets in antitrust analysis
Conglomerate effects and the incentive to deal reasonably with other providers of complementary products
Modern agriculture companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, develop cutting-edge seeds containing genetic traits that make them resistant to insecticides and herbicides. They also develop crop protection chemicals to use throughout the life of the crop to further safeguard from pests, weeds and grasses, and disease. No single company has a monopoly on all the ... Conglomerate effects and the incentive to deal reasonably with other providers of complementary products
Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Jon Jacobson in his initial posting claims that it would be “hard to find an easier case” than Apple e-Books, and David Balto and Chris Sagers seem to agree. I suppose that would be true if, as Richard Epstein claims, “the general view is that horizontal arrangements are per se unlawful.” That, however, is not ... Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Reed on the Apple e-books case: “We can remember it for you wholesale” – why the model matters in Apple e-books
In Philip K. Dick’s famous short story that inspired the Total Recall movies, a company called REKAL could implant “extra-factual memories” into the minds of anyone. That technology may be fictional, but the Apple eBooks case suggests that the ability to insert extra-factual memories into the courts already exists. The Department of Justice, the Second ... Reed on the Apple e-books case: “We can remember it for you wholesale” – why the model matters in Apple e-books
Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
The Apple e-books case is throwback to Dr. Miles, the 1911 Supreme Court decision that managed to misinterpret the economics of competition and so thwart productive activity for over a century. The active debate here at TOTM reveals why. The District Court and Second Circuit have employed a per se rule to find that the ... Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
Sagers on the Apple e-books case: Why does everybody hate competition so much?
United States v. Apple has fascinated me continually ever since the instantly-sensational complaint was made public, more than three years ago. Just one small, recent manifestation of the larger theme that makes it so interesting is the improbable range of folks who apparently consider certiorari rather likely—not least some commenters here, and even SCOTUSblog, which ... Sagers on the Apple e-books case: Why does everybody hate competition so much?
Balto on the Apple e-books case: Skip the (Apple) appetizer and get to the (McWane) main course
The “magic” of Washington can only go so far. Whether it is political consultants trying to create controversy where there is basic consensus, such as in parts of the political campaign, or the earnest effort to create a controversy over the Apple decision, there may be lots of words exchanged and animated discussion by political ... Balto on the Apple e-books case: Skip the (Apple) appetizer and get to the (McWane) main course
Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case
For a few months I have thought that the Apple eBooks case would find an easy fit within the Supreme Court’s antitrust decisions. The case that seems closest to me is Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, an unfortunately under-appreciated piece of antitrust precedent. One sign of its under-appreciation is its absence in some recent editions ... Hylton on the Apple e-books case: The central importance of the Court’s under-appreciated Business Electronics case
