Showing archive for: “Error Costs”
The Limits of Antitrust in the New Economy
Josh and I have just posted a draft of our new article, The Limits of Antitrust in the New Economy. We’ll be presenting it at the Searle Center Research Roundtable on the 25th Anniversary of Frank Easterbrook’s essential article, The Limits of Antitrust, next week. Here’s the abstract: This paper offers an opportunity to reflect ... The Limits of Antitrust in the New Economy
Jones v. Harris and Some Ramblings on Burdens of Proof, Empirical Evidence, and Behavioral Law and Economics
Much has been made about the importance of Jones v. Harris as a battle in the ongoing war between behavioral economics and rational choice/neoclassical framework (see, e.g. the NYT). If the case if to be about the appropriate economic methodology or model for assessing legal questions, it is definitely an interesting turn to have Judge ... Jones v. Harris and Some Ramblings on Burdens of Proof, Empirical Evidence, and Behavioral Law and Economics
Chicago, Neo-Chicago and Chicago Squared: A Comment from David Evans and Jorge Padilla
In a recent post, Josh jokingly offered a mathematical “proof” to demonstrate that the Neo-Chicago approach to antitrust was simply an extension of the basic Chicago School approach: Dan identifies the “Neo-Chicago School”, a term coined by David Evans and Jorge Padilla, as the optimal “third way.” Basically, the Neo-Chicago school is the combination of ... Chicago, Neo-Chicago and Chicago Squared: A Comment from David Evans and Jorge Padilla
The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, but particularly in cases where prices are falling. This discussion reminded me of Thom’s excellent post responding to the NYT editorial and an AAI working paper and putting theoretical anticompetitive ... The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume. Here’s Dan’s brief abstract: This essay reviews Bob Pitofsky’s 2008 essay compilation, How Chicago Overshot the Mark: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust. The essay critically evaluates the book’s rough handling of the Chicago School ... Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
Section 2 Symposium: Bruce Kobayashi on Are Administrable Bright Line Rules Underutilized in Section 2 Analyses?
One of the most important changes in the antitrust laws over the past 40 years has been the diminished reliance of rules of per se illegality in favor of a rule of reason analysis. With the Court’s recent rulings in Leegin (eliminating per se rule for minimum RPM) and Independent Ink (eliminating the per se ... Section 2 Symposium: Bruce Kobayashi on Are Administrable Bright Line Rules Underutilized in Section 2 Analyses?
Section 2 Symposium: Michael Salinger on Error Costs and the Case for Conduct-Specific Standards
The source of much of the disagreement between the Antitrust Division and the FTC is based on chapter 3, which discusses general standards for Section 2 liability. A major portion of chapter 3 concerns whether there is a unifying principle underlying appropriate doctrine for all behavior challenged under Section 2. A substantial portion of the ... Section 2 Symposium: Michael Salinger on Error Costs and the Case for Conduct-Specific Standards
Section 2 Symposium: David Evans–An Economist’s View
The treatment of unilateral conduct remains an intellectual and policy mess as we finish out the first decade of the 21st century. There were signs of hope a few years ago. The European Commission embarked on an effort to adopt an effects-based approach to unilateral conduct and to move away from the analytically-empty, object-based approach ... Section 2 Symposium: David Evans–An Economist’s View
Professor Carrier’s Response
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Josh Wright. Only because of Josh’s creativity and tireless, flawless execution did this blog symposium come about and run so smoothly. I also would like to thank Dennis Crouch, who has generously cross-posted the symposium at PatentlyO. And I am grateful for the ... Professor Carrier’s Response
Manne on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
Michael Carrier has written a timely and interesting book. Like Dan, I’m still digesting it (which means, in translation: I have not yet read every word). There is much to like about the book, in particular its accessible format and content. I do fear that it is a bit overly ambitious, however, hoping both to ... Manne on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
DOJ AAG Designate Christine Varney on Section 2, Europe, Google & A Puzzling Statement About Error Costs
Predicting what antitrust enforcement regimes in the current economic environment is a tricky business. I’ve done my best here. One probably cannot think of a better source for such predictions than those from the soon-to-be AAG Christine Varney, who recently spoke at an American Antitrust Institute panel on Section 2 enforcement (you can hear the ... DOJ AAG Designate Christine Varney on Section 2, Europe, Google & A Puzzling Statement About Error Costs
More on Error Costs
Speaking of error cost analysis, this paper from a trio of lawyers in the General Counsel’s Policy Studies’ group at the FTC has a section entitled “Error Costs: The False Positive/ Negative Debate.” A frustration for me in discussing the error cost issue with respect to antitrust policy is that many people do not seem ... More on Error Costs
