Showing archive for: “EU”
A quick note on Intel
I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its Intel 386 clone in the early 90s. In that time, inarguably, microprocessor prices have plumeted and processing power and other features have increased dramatically (I’m aware that we don’t know ... A quick note on Intel
Section 2 Symposium: David Evans on ‘Tying as Antitrust’s Greatest Intellectual Embarrassment’
I’d like to propose a contest for the greatest intellectual embarrassment of antitrust. Let me name the first contestant—tying, which some of you know has been one of my favorite for years. Here’s why. First, there is no persuasive theoretical or empirical evidence that tying is a business practice that is likely to harm consumers. ... Section 2 Symposium: David Evans on ‘Tying as Antitrust’s Greatest Intellectual Embarrassment’
Section 2 Symposium: Bill Page on Microsoft’s ‘Forward-Looking’ Monopolization Remedy
The DOJ’s Section 2 Report speaks in general terms about the costs and benefits of various remedies for monopolization. It prefers “prohibitory” remedies, but holds open the possibility of “additional relief,” including “affirmative-obligation remedies. The Report specifically mentions the protocol-licensing requirement of the Microsoft final judgments (§ III.E, entered in November 2002) as an example ... Section 2 Symposium: Bill Page on Microsoft’s ‘Forward-Looking’ Monopolization Remedy
Section 2 Symposium: Tim Brennan on Predation, Exclusion, and Complement Market Monopolization
As evidenced by this on-line symposium, the handling of cases under the rubrics “monopolization,” “single firm conduct”, or “abuse of dominance” continues to be debated by the competition policy community. This debate, as evidenced by the Antitrust Division’s Sept. 2008 single firm conduct report and the FTC responses, is not restricted within the U.S. The ... Section 2 Symposium: Tim Brennan on Predation, Exclusion, and Complement Market Monopolization
Section 2 Symposium: Howard Marvel–An Economist’s View
In the wake of Bork and Posner, and Baxter and the Reagan Revolution, a consensus emerged that big could be bad, but the harm that dominant firms could do needed to be demonstrated, not simply assumed in consequence of their sheer size. Moreover, the demonstration required harm to competition. The consensus held through the Clinton ... Section 2 Symposium: Howard Marvel–An Economist’s View
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
Section 2 Symposium: Alden Abbott on the View from Within the FTC
Much ink has been spilled concerning the policy split revealed by the Justice Department’s September 2008 Report on Single Firm Conduct (“SFC”) and the Federal Trade Commission’s swift and rather critical rejoinder (issued by three of the four FTC Commissioners). (By “SFC” I refer to actions taken by a “dominant” firm or by an actual ... Section 2 Symposium: Alden Abbott on the View from Within the FTC
"We're Kinda Worried About the Monopoly Thing"
That’s from Firefox chief software architect Mike Connor in an interview with PCPro. Here’s an excerpt suggesting that Mozilla fears that its recent success might lead to antitrust liability in the United States or elsewhere: Firefox has only just tipped past the 20% mark in worldwide browser market share, and is still a long way ... "We're Kinda Worried About the Monopoly Thing"
Dont Call It A Comeback
When I came onto the job market in 2004, a number of advisers told me that I should not market myself as an “antitrust guy.” The prevailing view on the job market was that “antitrust was dead.” This perception was conveyed one way or another in interviews or conversations with folks in the legal academy. ... Dont Call It A Comeback
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
Kieff on Carrier’s Innovation in the 21st Century
I, too, join the rest of the participants in congratulating Michael Carrier on this great book about this great topic. I have enjoyed reading Michael’s work in the past and I enjoyed meeting him at a conference last year. He is a wonderfully warm, bright, and engaging person. Although I wish that I had more ... Kieff on Carrier’s Innovation in the 21st Century
Varney Confirmation Hearings
Webcast and testimony are available. Here is the paragraph from the testimony setting forth objectives for the new DOJ enforcement regime with some brief commentary below: There are three main areas that, if confirmed, I will focus on as the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. First, we must rebalance legal and economic theories in antitrust ... Varney Confirmation Hearings
