Showing archive for: “Sherman Antitrust Act”
American Booksellers Association Advances Bad Antitrust Argument, But Who Can Blame Them?
The WSJ Reports that the American Booksellers Association has knocked on Christine Varney’s door at the Antitrust Division to complain about the new low prices resulting from the price war between Amazon, Target and Wal-Mart. The complaint? In a letter dated Oct. 22, the ABA said it believes that the discount pricing—which has led to ... American Booksellers Association Advances Bad Antitrust Argument, But Who Can Blame Them?
Should Antitrust Exempt Joint Monopsony Conduct to Countervail Monopoly?
Geoff and Josh raise an interesting issue about collective market conduct by buyers. Suppose that a group of final consumers face a monopolist. Should the consumers be permitted to band together into an “association” to jointly negotiate a lower price from the monopolist? Some would say that such buyer “cooperatives” are permitted, whereas others would ... Should Antitrust Exempt Joint Monopsony Conduct to Countervail Monopoly?
What Am I Missing About Antitrust Exemptions?
Geoff mentions the pending bills on the Hill that would grant merchants an antitrust exemption to negotiate interchange fees. The insurance industry exemption has also been in the news of late in the wake of the Democrats’ threats of repeal. Here’s what I’m puzzled about. Other than self-interested parties that have a lot to gain ... What Am I Missing About Antitrust Exemptions?
Together Again: The FTC and DOJ Join Forces in American Needle v. NFL
The FTC joined the DOJ brief in American Needle v. National Football League arguing that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari. The brief characterizes the question presented as: Whether NFLP, the NFL, and the teams functioned as a “single entity” when granting the company an exclusive headwear license and therefore could not violate Section 1 ... Together Again: The FTC and DOJ Join Forces in American Needle v. NFL
Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose?
Expanding on the themes in this post from the TOTM symposium book review of Professor Carrier’s new book on “Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law” to encourage innovation, I’ve posted an essay co-authored with a very talented former student and research assistant, Aubrey Stuempfle. The essay expands on some of the themes ... Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose?
Coda: Varney withdraws Section 2 Report
I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report. The comments made in the statement withdrawing the Report indicate . . . well, that Varney isn’t convinced by reading this blog, among other things. Coming on the heels of our Section 2 Symposium, the news is jarring, although ... Coda: Varney withdraws Section 2 Report
Section 2 Symposium: Thom Lambert on Defining and Identifying Exclusionary Conduct
There’s a fundamental problem with Section 2 of the Sherman Act: nobody really knows what it means. More specifically, we don’t have a very precise definition for “exclusionary conduct,” the second element of a Section 2 claim. The classic definition from the Supreme Court’s Grinnell decision — “the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power ... Section 2 Symposium: Thom Lambert on Defining and Identifying Exclusionary Conduct
Randy Picker on the Google Book Settlement
Randy Picker has posted The Google Book Settlement: A New Orphan Works Monopoly? to SSRN. I have not been following the antitrust issues related to the settlement as closely as I should be and so I’m really looking forward to reading this. Here is the abstract: This paper considers the proposed settlement agreement between Google ... Randy Picker on the Google Book Settlement
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
Wright on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
First, I want to join the rest of the participants in congratulating Professor Carrier on an excellent and well-written book emerging out of a thoughtful and ambitious project. The project, and the book, are provocative, important contributions to the literature, and usefully synthesize many of the most important debates in both antitrust and intellectual property. ... Wright on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
Gabriel on Trinko After Linkline
Manfred Gabriel (Antitrust Review) writes that Linkline extends the reach of Trinko in some important ways: The opinion of the court in Linkline, Chief Justice Roberts writes that Trinko: … makes clear that if a firm has no antitrust duty to deal with its competitors at wholesale, it certainly has no duty to deal under ... Gabriel on Trinko After Linkline
Why the Supreme Court was Correct to Deny Cert in Rambus
As TOTM readers are likely to know, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Rambus, a course of action I had argued was the appropriate response to the arguments set forth in the Commission petition. I recently expanded the blog post into a short essay which I’ve posted on SSRN. It will also be available in ... Why the Supreme Court was Correct to Deny Cert in Rambus
