Showing archive for: “Collusion & Cartels”
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
Albanese on the Apple e-books case: Apple’s Anticlimactic Appeal
In October of last year, I had the chance to interview Hachette CEO Arnaud Nourry from the stage at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and I asked him whether his 2009 concerns that low e-book prices would devalue the book—the driving factor behind the alleged e-book price-fixing conspiracy—were in the the past. After all, much has changed ... Albanese on the Apple e-books case: Apple’s Anticlimactic Appeal
Manne on the Apple e-books case: The Second Circuit’s decision has no support in the law and/or economics
As ICLE argued in its amicus brief, the Second Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Apple Inc. is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2007 Leegin decision, and creates a circuit split with the Third Circuit based on that court’s Toledo Mack ruling. Moreover, the negative consequences of the court’s ruling will be particularly acute ... Manne on the Apple e-books case: The Second Circuit’s decision has no support in the law and/or economics
Jacobson on the Apple ebooks case: It is hard to find an easier antitrust case than United States v. Apple
Try as one may, it is hard to find an easier antitrust case than United States v. Apple. Consider: The six leading publishers all wanted to prevent Amazon and others from offering best seller e-books at $9.99 (or other similar low prices). The problem, however, was that they had no mechanism for accomplishing that result. Then ... Jacobson on the Apple ebooks case: It is hard to find an easier antitrust case than United States v. Apple
Abbott on the Apple e-books case: Apple v. United States and antitrust error cost analysis
As Judge (and Professor) Frank Easterbrook famously explained over three decades ago (in his seminal article The Limits of Antitrust), antitrust is an inherently limited body of law. In crafting and enforcing liability rules to combat market power and encourage competition, courts and regulators may err in two directions: they may wrongly forbid output-enhancing behavior ... Abbott on the Apple e-books case: Apple v. United States and antitrust error cost analysis
Epstein on the Apple e-books case: The hidden traps in the Apple ebook case
On balance the Second Circuit was right to apply the antitrust laws to Apple. Right now the Supreme Court has before it a petition for Certiorari, brought by Apple, Inc., which asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Second Circuit. That decision found per se illegality under the Sherman Act, for Apple’s efforts ... Epstein on the Apple e-books case: The hidden traps in the Apple ebook case
Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”
In my view, the Second Circuit’s decision in Apple e-Books, if not reversed by the Supreme Court, threatens to undo a half century of progress in reforming antitrust doctrine. In decision after decision, from White Motors through Leegin and Actavis, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held—in cases involving both horizontal and vertical restraints—that the only ... Kolasky on the Apple e-books case: Another reminder that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers”
Heritage Antitrust Conference Highlights Domestic and International Policy Challenges for the Next Administration
On January 26 the Heritage Foundation hosted a one-day conference on “Antitrust Policy for a New Administration.” Featured speakers included three former heads of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) (D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg, James Rill, and Thomas Barnett) and a former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (keynote ... Heritage Antitrust Conference Highlights Domestic and International Policy Challenges for the Next Administration
ICLE and leading antitrust scholars urge Supreme Court to review 2nd Circuit ruling in Apple e-books case
Today the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Apple’s petition for certiorari in its e-books antitrust case. ICLE’s brief was signed by sixteen distinguished scholars of law, economics and public policy, including an Economics Nobel Laureate, a former FTC Commissioner, ten ... ICLE and leading antitrust scholars urge Supreme Court to review 2nd Circuit ruling in Apple e-books case
Amateurism and Antitrust: The 9th Circuit Gets It Right
On September 30, in O’Bannon v. NCAA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) rules that prohibited student athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses are subject to the antitrust laws and constitute an unlawful restraint of trade, under ... Amateurism and Antitrust: The 9th Circuit Gets It Right
