Showing results for: “Leegin”
A New Defense of the Per Se Prohibition Against RPM?
Professor Sokol points to this paper by Ittai Paldor (an SJD student at U. Toronto) which Sokol points out qualifies as the rarely observed defense of the per se rule against RPM. Here’s an excerpt from the abstract: In the following I argue that legal policymakers’ current approach is economically justified. I show that all ... A New Defense of the Per Se Prohibition Against RPM?
One More on Leegin (and then I’ll shut up…promise!)
I was on Spring Break last week and was too tied up to do much blogging on Leegin, which I’ve been following pretty closely. Fortunately, Josh and Keith were on the ball with some great insights. I did eventually manage to do a little tea-leaf reading for the eSapience Center for Competition Policy (eCCP). eCCP ... One More on Leegin (and then I’ll shut up…promise!)
You Mean Leegin's Not the Only SCOTUS Antitrust Case?
While we have been going on and on and on about Leegin here at TOTM, Manfred Gabriel offers a detailed analysis and a prediction on Twombly, the pending SCOTUS case which may provide some important guidance on 12(b)(6) standards. Gabriel predicts that the Court will neither embrace the District Court’s ruling that plus-factors must be ... You Mean Leegin's Not the Only SCOTUS Antitrust Case?
More Thoughts on the Leegin Transcript
A few more thoughts to supplement Josh’s fine posting on the transcript of oral argument in Leegin. I don’t understand Justice Breyer. He recognizes that there are at least some circumstances in which RPM helps consumers. Why isn’t that enough for Dr. Miles to be overruled? Justice Breyer regards this as a “close case” (presumably ... More Thoughts on the Leegin Transcript
Some Preliminary Reactions to the Leegin Transcripts
Transcripts in Leegin are available here (HT: Antitrust Review where David Fischer points out some of the highlights of the oral argument). I may add some additional thoughts later after I read the whole thing again, but for now here are some first impressions: Breyer and Souter both had some interest comments on what to ... Some Preliminary Reactions to the Leegin Transcripts
Cass on Leegin
Ronald Cass, dean emeritus of Boston University Law School, argues in today’s WSJ that the Supreme Court should overrule Dr. Miles: The decision was a mistake that has plagued antitrust law and American business ever since. Manufacturers have no interest in suppressing price competition to help increase profits for retailers. A manufacturer with a meaningful ... Cass on Leegin
Majoras Responds to Conyers Regarding Leegin
There’s just so much paper going back and forth on Leegin that it’s hard to keep up. In addition to various briefs and commentaries and Commissioner Harbour’s de facto brief (also discussed here), there has been some interesting correspondence between Rep. Conyers, Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Deborah Platt Majoras, Chair ... Majoras Responds to Conyers Regarding Leegin
More Stuff on Leegin
Antitrust Review has been covering the Leegin briefs. Good stuff here and here. Manfred Gabriel weighs in on my recent post and Josh’s comments here. In addition, The Antitrust Source has a number of interesting pieces on Dr. Miles and Leegin, including a nice overview piece by Antitrust Reviewer, David Fischer.
A Response to Commissioner Harbour’s "Open Letter" on Leegin
Federal Trade Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour has sent the U.S. Supreme Court justices an “open letter” regarding the pending Leegin case. [HT: Danny Sokol.] Leegin, as regular TOTM readers know, will test the continued vitality of Dr. Miles, the 1911 decision making it per se illegal for manufacturers and retailers to agree on minimum retail ... A Response to Commissioner Harbour’s "Open Letter" on Leegin
Minimum RPM Can Prevent Dealer Free-Riding … And Can You Please Pass the Bread?
Thursday night I will be speaking at a dinner and discussion sponsored by the eSapience Center for Competition Policy (eCCP) on the pending Leegin decision and the application of per se rules to minimum RPM. Here is the eCCP announcement: Presentations will be made by Prof. Robert Pitofsky, and Prof. Joshua Wright. Prof. Pitofsky is ... Minimum RPM Can Prevent Dealer Free-Riding … And Can You Please Pass the Bread?
Antitrust Superprecedent
Shubha Ghosh, of the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog, is predicting that the Supreme Court will not overrule the 1911 Dr. Miles decision, which holds that “vertical minimum resale price maintenance” (i.e., a manufacturer’s imposition of minimum resale price for his goods) is per se illegal. Ghosh explains: [T]he grant of cert in Leegin is ... Antitrust Superprecedent
Are Dr. Miles' Days Numbered?
Maybe. WSJ Law Blog reports that SCOTUS may revisit the nearly century old precedent applying the per se rule to minimum resale price maintenance (RPM). Dr. Miles may well be the last vestige of antitrust before consumer welfare’s promotion as the guiding principle of the Sherman Act, which is to say, before economics had a ... Are Dr. Miles' Days Numbered?
