Showing archive for: “Monopolization”
ACS Blog Debate on Google: Putting Consumer Welfare First in Antitrust Analysis of Google
[I am participating in an online “debate” at the American Constitution Society with Professor Ben Edelman. The debate consists of an opening statement and concluding responses to be posted later in the week. Professor Edelman’s opening statement is here. I am cross-posting my opening statement here at TOTM. This is my closing statement] Professor Edelman’s ... ACS Blog Debate on Google: Putting Consumer Welfare First in Antitrust Analysis of Google
Do Exclusionary Theories of the AT&T / T-Mobile Transaction Better Explain the Market’s Reaction to the DOJ’s Decision to Challenge the Merger?
I don’t think so. Let’s start from the beginning. In my last post, I pointed out that simple economic theory generates some pretty clear predictions concerning the impact of a merger on rival stock prices. If a merger is results in a more efficient competitor, and more intense post-merger competition, rivals are made worse off ... Do Exclusionary Theories of the AT&T / T-Mobile Transaction Better Explain the Market’s Reaction to the DOJ’s Decision to Challenge the Merger?
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
Searching for Antitrust Remedies, Part I
This is part one of a two part series of posts in which I’ll address the problems associated with discerning an appropriate antitrust remedy to alleged search engine bias. The first problem – and part – is, of course, how we should conceptualize Google’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct; in the next part, I will address how ... Searching for Antitrust Remedies, Part I
First Microsoft, Now Google: Berin Szoka, Josh Wright and Geoff Manne in CNET
Josh, Berin Szoka and I have a new op-ed up at CNET on why the lessons of Microsoft suggest the FTC’s action against Google might be misguided. A taste: Ten years ago this week, an appeals court upheld Microsoft’s conviction for monopolizing the PC operating system market. The decision became a key legal precedent for U.S. antitrust ... First Microsoft, Now Google: Berin Szoka, Josh Wright and Geoff Manne in CNET
What’s really motivating the pursuit of Google?
I have an op-ed up at Main Justice on FTC Chairman Leibowitz’ recent comment in response the a question about the FTC’s investigation of Google that the FTC is looking for a “pure Section Five case.” With Main Justice’s permission, the op-ed is re-printed here: There’s been a lot of chatter around Washington about ... What’s really motivating the pursuit of Google?
TechFreedom Search Engine Regulation Event today
Today at 12:30 at the Capitol Visitor Center, TechFreedom is hosting a discussion on the regulation of search engines: “Search Engine Regulation: A Solution in Search of a Problem?” The basics: Allegations of “search bias” have led to increased scrutiny of Google, including active investigations in the European Union and Texas, a possible FTC investigation, ... TechFreedom Search Engine Regulation Event today
WAPO Concludes that Vertical Efficiencies Trump Horizontal Market Power
A Washington Post editorial last week reached the surprising conclusion that a series of vertical and horizontal acquisitions that led to a firm owning about 40% of the gas stations in the District of Columbia was procompetitive. The editorial apparently concluded that the vertical integration efficiencies were more important than the adverse horizontal effects. The ... WAPO Concludes that Vertical Efficiencies Trump Horizontal Market Power
Barnett v. Barnett on Antitrust
Tom Barnett (Covington & Burling) represents Expedia in, among other things, its efforts to persuade a US antitrust agency to bring a case against Google involving the alleged use of its search engine results to harm competition. In that role, in a recent piece in Bloomberg, Barnett wrote the following things: “The U.S. Justice Department ... Barnett v. Barnett on Antitrust
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
Google, Antitrust, and First Principles
I’ve read with interest over the last few days the commentary on Microsoft’s filing of a formal complaint with the EU, Microsoft’s defense of its actions, and the various stories around the web. Geoff and Paul appropriately focus on the error-cost concerns associated with intervention in high-tech markets; Paul also emphasizes the ironies associated with ... Google, Antitrust, and First Principles
