Showing archive for: “Sherman Antitrust Act”
In re Pool Corporation: Yet Another Peculiar and Peverse Section 5 Consent from the FTC
TOTM readers know that I’ve long been skeptical of claims that expansive use of Section 5 of the FTC Act will prove productive for consumers. I’ve been critical of recent applications of Section 5 such as Intel and N-Data. Now comes yet another FTC consent decree in PoolCorp. I’m still skeptical. Indeed, PoolCorp appears to ... In re Pool Corporation: Yet Another Peculiar and Peverse Section 5 Consent from the FTC
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?
FairSearch’s Non-Sequitur Response
Our search neutrality paper has received some recent attention. While the initial response from Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal was favorable, critics are now voicing their responses. Although we appreciate FairSearch’s attempt to engage with our paper’s central claims, its response is really little more than an extended non-sequitur and fails to contribute ... FairSearch’s Non-Sequitur Response
Sacrificing Consumer Welfare in the Search Bias Debate, Part II
I did not intend for this to become a series (Part I), but I underestimated the supply of analysis simultaneously invoking “search bias” as an antitrust concept while waving it about untethered from antitrust’s institutional commitment to protecting consumer welfare. Harvard Business School Professor Ben Edelman offers the latest iteration in this genre. We’ve criticized ... Sacrificing Consumer Welfare in the Search Bias Debate, Part II
Brantley and its Implications for the Proposed Consumer Choice Antitrust Standard
Thom‘s excellent post highlights the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Brantley and describes its implications both in terms of rejecting Professor Elhauge’s claim that metering ties and mere surplus extraction amount to competitive harm for the purposes of antitrust and also for the future of the quasi-per se rule of tying. Thom, in my view ... Brantley and its Implications for the Proposed Consumer Choice Antitrust Standard
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?
Ninth Circuit Moves Tying Doctrine in the Right Direction. Will SCOTUS Follow?
The Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision that pushes the doctrine governing tying in the right direction. If appealed, the decision could provide the Roberts Court with an opportunity to do for tying what its Leegin decision did for resale price maintenance: reduce error costs by bringing an overly prohibitory liability rule in line with economic learning. First, some ... Ninth Circuit Moves Tying Doctrine in the Right Direction. Will SCOTUS Follow?
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
“We therefore commit, effective immediately, to give every author at least seven days to decide whether to accept any offer for publication”
There is lots of talk about the various implications of the agreement between the various law reviews to cease and desist with the practice of exploding offers. One interesting aspect of the commitment is that it is fairly transparent that the law reviews viewed exploding offers as a method of competing with one another, and ... “We therefore commit, effective immediately, to give every author at least seven days to decide whether to accept any offer for publication”
March 15: Kick-Off for The Law School Hiring Cartel
If you’re currently a law professor and you’re thinking you might want to change schools (because, for example, your school continued its precipitous slide in the law school rankings . . . more about that later), you’d better hop on the phone. Today is your last day to snag a visiting offer from another law ... March 15: Kick-Off for The Law School Hiring Cartel
Revisiting the Theory and Evidence on State CPAs and FTC Act Section 5 Follow-ons
One of the most fundamental issues in the ongoing debate concerning the costs and benefits of expanded FTC Section 5 enforcement is the extent to which one must be concerned with its collateral consequences. A central claim of proponents of a broad interpretation of Section 5 coupled with its aggressive enforcement is that concerns with ... Revisiting the Theory and Evidence on State CPAs and FTC Act Section 5 Follow-ons
