Showing archive for: “Unilateral Conduct”
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
Chicago, Neo-Chicago and Chicago Squared: A Comment from David Evans and Jorge Padilla
In a recent post, Josh jokingly offered a mathematical “proof” to demonstrate that the Neo-Chicago approach to antitrust was simply an extension of the basic Chicago School approach: Dan identifies the “Neo-Chicago School”, a term coined by David Evans and Jorge Padilla, as the optimal “third way.” Basically, the Neo-Chicago school is the combination of ... Chicago, Neo-Chicago and Chicago Squared: A Comment from David Evans and Jorge Padilla
Let's Have New Section 2 Hearings!
Commissioner Rosch has offered a defense of the withdraw of the Section 2 Report. This is an important step and the Commissioner, who readers know I’ve criticized from time to time here, should be credited for laying out his specific objections to the Report. The objections are, in short, that the Report: Was “too ambitious” ... Let's Have New Section 2 Hearings!
Commissioner Rosch, Rhetoric, and the Relationship Between Economics and Antitrust
Economic theory is essential to antitrust law. It is economic analysis that constrains antitrust law and harnesses it so that it is used to protect consumers rather than competitors. And the relationship between economics and antitrust is responsible for the successful evolution of antitrust from its economically incoherent origins to its present state. In my ... Commissioner Rosch, Rhetoric, and the Relationship Between Economics and Antitrust
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I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report.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: Alden Abbott on the International Perspective
As I indicated in my prior blog entry, U.S. competition policy vis-à-vis single firm conduct (“SFC”) is best viewed not in isolation, but, rather, in the context of other jurisdictions’ SFC enforcement philosophies, and efforts to promote greater SFC policy convergence worldwide. Given the proliferation of competition law regimes, firms that do business in multiple ... Section 2 Symposium: Alden Abbott on the International Perspective
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
Section 2 Symposium: Tad Lipsky on Framing the Debate
When the Justice Department issued its Unilateral Conduct Report last September, it became an instant sensation not primarily because of its content, but because of a strident public critique issued by three FTC Commissioners, including now-Chairman Leibowitz. The three (Harbour, Leibowitz and Rosch, hereinafter “HLR”) accused the Antitrust Division of placing “a thumb on the ... Section 2 Symposium: Tad Lipsky on Framing the Debate
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
Manne on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
Michael Carrier has written a timely and interesting book. Like Dan, I’m still digesting it (which means, in translation: I have not yet read every word). There is much to like about the book, in particular its accessible format and content. I do fear that it is a bit overly ambitious, however, hoping both to ... Manne on Carrier's Innovation in the 21st Century
