Showing archive for: “Rule of Reason”
Global Antitrust Institute Points the Way Toward Sounder Japanese Antitrust Guidelines
The indefatigable (and highly talented) scriveners at the Scalia Law School’s Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) once again have offered a trenchant law and economics assessment that, if followed, would greatly improve a foreign jurisdiction’s competition law guidance. This latest assessment, which is compelling and highly persuasive, is embodied in a May 4 GAI Commentary on ... Global Antitrust Institute Points the Way Toward Sounder Japanese Antitrust Guidelines
Justice Department Ignores the Benefits of Contracting Freedom in its Crabbed Reading of Music Distribution Decrees
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ignored sound law and economics principles in its August 4 decision announcing a new interpretation of seventy-five year-old music licensing consent decrees it had entered into separately with the two major American “performing rights organizations” (PROs) — the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers ... Justice Department Ignores the Benefits of Contracting Freedom in its Crabbed Reading of Music Distribution Decrees
Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Jon Jacobson in his initial posting claims that it would be “hard to find an easier case” than Apple e-Books, and David Balto and Chris Sagers seem to agree. I suppose that would be true if, as Richard Epstein claims, “the general view is that horizontal arrangements are per se unlawful.” That, however, is not ... Kolasky (2) on the Apple e-books case: Coordination, even horizontal coordination, isn’t per se illegal
Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
The Apple e-books case is throwback to Dr. Miles, the 1911 Supreme Court decision that managed to misinterpret the economics of competition and so thwart productive activity for over a century. The active debate here at TOTM reveals why. The District Court and Second Circuit have employed a per se rule to find that the ... Hazlett on the Apple e-books case: The Apple case is a throwback to Dr. Miles, and that’s not a good thing
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
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”
