Showing results for: “loyalty discounts”
GCP on Single Product Rebates and Bundled Discounts
Global Competition Policy has a new issue out focusing on the antitrust analysis of single product rebates and bundled discounts in the United States and Europe, including articles from: H.E. Frech (UCSB) Benjamin Klein (UCLA and LECG) Jonathan Rubin (Patton Boggs) M. Laurence Popofsky Renato Nazzini (University of Southampton) Johanne Peyre & Laurent Geelhand (Michelin ... GCP on Single Product Rebates and Bundled Discounts
Are Loyalty Discounts Really Anticompetitive?
I promised that I would write about why I think that Professor Elhauge’s claim in his new working paper, “Loyalty Discounts and Naked Exclusion,” that he has proven that loyalty discounts generally involve anticompetitive effects is mistaken. Let me begin by saying that this is a very provocative claim from a very serious antitrust analyst ... Are Loyalty Discounts Really Anticompetitive?
Three From Professor Elhauge on Antitrust
2008 has been a busy year for Harvard Professor Einer Elhauge so far from the looks of his SSRN page (not to mention advising Senator Obama on legal policies). He’s posted three new working papers covering a diverse set of antitrust topics: Loyalty Discounts and Naked Exclusion (purporting to “prove that loyalty discounts create anticompetitive ... Three From Professor Elhauge on Antitrust
All We Are Saying Is Give PeaceHealth a Chance.
Josh had a characteristically thoughtful post last week on safe harbors for loyalty and bundled discounts. I didn’t comment on the post, with which I generally agree, because I was busy writing an amicus brief (also signed by Dan Crane, Richard Epstein, Tom Morgan, and Danny Sokol) in an attempt to preserve a different safe ... All We Are Saying Is Give PeaceHealth a Chance.
Thoughts on Safe Harbors for Quantity Discounts (and Bundling)
Dennis Carlton and Michael Waldman have posted an insightful DOJ working paper on antitrust safe harbors for unilateral conduct involving quantity discounts and bundling. The discussion is very timely in light of the Microsoft CFI decision, AMC Report, Section 2 Hearings, and various monopolization cases in the United States, EU, and other antitrust jurisdictions. The Carlton & Waldman ... Thoughts on Safe Harbors for Quantity Discounts (and Bundling)
Cuomo Goes After Intel (to Get AMD Plant for NY?)
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has issued a subpoena to Intel Corp. as part of an investigation into whether Intel’s discounting practices violate federal or state antitrust laws. According to Cuomo’s press release, the subpoena seeks documents and information concerning Intel’s pricing practices and possible attempt to exclude competitors through its market domination. The ... Cuomo Goes After Intel (to Get AMD Plant for NY?)
Teaching RPM After Leegin
Back in the olden days (i.e., before this past summer), a manufacturer automatically violated the antitrust laws — no ifs, ands, or buts — if he agreed with a retailer that the latter would charge at least a minimum price for the manufacturer’s products. For reasons we elaborated ad nauseum (click and scroll down), that ... Teaching RPM After Leegin
The Best Antitrust Articles of 2007
Danny Sokol has collected picks from antitrust specialists around the globe. There were plenty of excellent articles and books to pick from but I ultimately selected this article from Keith Hylton and Fei Deng and this book on the Microsoft Case from Bill Page and John Lopatka. You can see the rest of the picks ... The Best Antitrust Articles of 2007
Scrapping the Notion of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders
U of Chicago Law Professors Douglas Baird and M. Todd Henderson (my very smart, very tall law school classmate) recently posted a provocative paper on SSRN. The paper, Other People’s Money, contends that “the oft-repeated maxim that directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders” is an “almost-right principle that has distorted ... Scrapping the Notion of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders
Intel’s Loyalty Rebates: Why the Interventionists Are Wrong
The New York Times isn’t the only one calling for the FTC to go after Intel for its purportedly exclusionary discounting. The reliably interventionist American Antitrust Institute concurs. In a recent letter to the FTC, it wrote: Based on allegations by AMD [Advanced Micro Devices] in a private U.S. case and on what we have ... Intel’s Loyalty Rebates: Why the Interventionists Are Wrong
NYT’s Freudian Slip
I just wandered down to the local Panera Bread for lunch and picked up someone’s discarded copy of today’s New York Times. One of today’s editorials, F.T.C. Goes AWOL, claims that the Federal Trade Commission “clearly shares the ‘starve the regulators and coddle industry’ philosophy that has driven the Bush administration for seven years.” The ... NYT’s Freudian Slip
The Aftermath of a Type I Error: The Case of Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco
It looks like California consumers, unlike their counterparts in several other states, will be getting cash instead of coupons in their settlement against U.S. Tobacco in one of the many follow-on actions to Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco. The settlement looks to be in the range of $96 million with qualifying customers taking home ... The Aftermath of a Type I Error: The Case of Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco
