Showing archive for: “Duty to Deal & Essential Facilities”
Senator Lee’s prescription for regulatory failure in the generic drug market
Brand drug manufacturers are no strangers to antitrust accusations when it comes to their complicated relationship with generic competitors — most obviously with respect to reverse payment settlements. But the massive and massively complex regulatory scheme under which drugs are regulated has provided other opportunities for regulatory legerdemain with potentially anticompetitive effect, as well. In ... Senator Lee’s prescription for regulatory failure in the generic drug market
O competition, we stand on guard for thee
Today’s Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) Google decision marks yet another regulator joining the chorus of competition agencies around the world that have already dismissed similar complaints relating to Google’s Search or Android businesses (including the US FTC, the Korea FTC, the Taiwan FTC, and AG offices in Texas and Ohio). A number of courts around ... O competition, we stand on guard for thee
The Essential Facility of Obama’s Competition Policy
It appears that White House’s zeal for progressive-era legal theory has … progressed (or regressed?) further. Late last week President Obama signed an Executive Order that nominally claims to direct executive agencies (and “strongly encourages” independent agencies) to adopt “pro-competitive” policies. It’s called Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support ... The Essential Facility of Obama’s Competition Policy
Justice Scalia, Monopolization, and Economic Efficiency
The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s magisterial contributions to American jurisprudence will be the source of numerous learned analyses over the coming months. As in so many other doctrinal areas, Justice Scalia’s opinions contributed importantly to the sound development of antitrust law, and, in particular, to the assessment of monopolization. His oft-cited 2004 opinion for the ... Justice Scalia, Monopolization, and Economic Efficiency
Chinese Competition Law Reform: Wise Guidance from the George Mason University Global Antitrust Institute
China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) was enacted in 2007, and a stock-taking exercise is now appropriate. Recently, the Chinese University of Political Science and Law released a questionnaire soliciting public comments on the possible revision of the AML. On December 10, 2015, George Mason University Law School’s (GMULS) Global Antitrust Institute (GAI, ably managed by FTC ... Chinese Competition Law Reform: Wise Guidance from the George Mason University Global Antitrust Institute
Need for Chinese Antitrust Reform (and IP and Price-Related Concerns) Spotlighted at ABA Beijing Conference
The American Bar Association’s (ABA) “Antitrust in Asia: China” Conference, held in Beijing May 21-23 (with Chinese Government and academic support), cast a spotlight on the growing economic importance of China’s six-year old Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). The Conference brought together 250 antitrust practitioners and government officials to discuss AML enforcement policy. These included the leaders ... Need for Chinese Antitrust Reform (and IP and Price-Related Concerns) Spotlighted at ABA Beijing Conference
Tad Lipsky on Lessons From the Section 2 Context
The FTC’s struggle to provide guidance for its enforcement of Section 5’s Unfair Methods of Competition (UMC) clause (or not – some oppose the provision of forward guidance by the agency, much as one occasionally heard opposition to the concept of merger guidelines in 1968 and again in 1982) could evoke a much broader long-run ... Tad Lipsky on Lessons From the Section 2 Context
Fed should stay out of Google/Twitter social search spat
As has become customary with just about every new product announcement by Google these days, the company’s introduction on Tuesday of its new “Search, plus Your World” (SPYW) program, which aims to incorporate a user’s Google+ content into her organic search results, has met with cries of antitrust foul play. All the usual blustering and ... Fed should stay out of Google/Twitter social search spat
Searching for Antitrust Remedies, Part II
In the last post, I discussed possible characterizations of Google’s conduct for purposes of antitrust analysis. A firm grasp of the economic implications of the different conceptualizations of Google’s conduct is a necessary – but not sufficient – precondition for appreciating the inconsistencies underlying the proposed remedies for Google’s alleged competitive harms. In this post, ... Searching for Antitrust Remedies, Part II
The FTC Makes its Google Investigation Official, Now What?
No surprise here. The WSJ announced it was coming yesterday, and today Google publicly acknowledged that it has received subpoenas related to the Commission’s investigation. Amit Singhal of Google acknowledged the FTC subpoenas at the Google Public Policy Blog: At Google, we’ve always focused on putting the user first. We aim to provide relevant answers ... The FTC Makes its Google Investigation Official, Now What?
Manne and Wright on Search Neutrality
Josh and I have just completed a white paper on search neutrality/search bias and the regulation of search engines. The paper is this year’s first in the ICLE Antitrust & Consumer Protection White Paper Series: If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question? Geoffrey A. Manne (Lewis & Clark Law School and ICLE) and ... Manne and Wright on Search Neutrality
Net neutrality and Trinko
Commentators who see Trinko as an impediment to the claim that antitrust law can take care of harmful platform access problems (and thus that prospective rate regulation (i.e., net neutrality) is not necessary), commit an important error in making their claim–and it is a similar error committed by those who advocate for search neutrality regulation, as ... Net neutrality and Trinko
