Our Oct. Blog ‘o Blogs includes a Mark Lemley interview exploring IP & antitrust; an antitrust approach to choosing a Rabbi; a look at whether the Sherman Act is “frisky” enough to deal with online businesses; the French approach—or non-approach—to setting fines; the threat of Behavioral Antitrust; market definition questions in a Google and Facebook interaction; appropriate interaction between an IP Tsar and competition authorities; and a guess as to whether a new DOJ appointment changes the DOJ’s approach to competition policy. We end with an antitrust history story involving the ITT breakup and bribery.
On the Record with Mark Lemley: The Presumption of Validity
It’s a patent case, at least on the periphery, and an antitrust case. And the combination of the two would seem to me to be attractive to the Supreme Court. Gene Quinn (IP Watchdog)
Rabbi Searches Are Tough, But Are They Also Illegal?
An antitrust analysis in a unique context.
Barak D. Richman (The Jewish Daily Forward)
Time to Wake Up and Smell the Antitrust
If it walks, talks, acts, and smells like a monopolist, odds are it’s a monopolist. Eric K. Clemons (The Huffington Post)
Towards Greater Convergence on the Calculation of Fines
More importantly, the Paris Court of Appeals applied a calculation method that significantly diverged from the one used by the Authority. Eric Barbier de la Serre (Latham & Watkins)
Misbehavioral Economics: The Case Against Behavioral Antitrust
Will regulators use behavioral economics to “dress up” preferred policy positions in a veil of economic rigor? Joshua Wright (Truth on the Market)
Doing No Evil
How Google and Facebook can work—and compete—with each other. Robert Hahn & Peter Passell (Forbes)
Time for a Tsar—and a Tsar for Our Times?
Among her other roles, should the IP tsar stand up to the competition authorities? Jeremy Phillips (Intellectual Law and Practice Journal)
A Matter of Control
Merger lawyers are trying to divine how upcoming changes at the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will affect deal timing and analysis… (The Deal)
Behind Nixon’s Big SD Scandal
In return for them ponying up this money, Nixon ordered his staff to give ITT what it wanted and lay off the antitrust litigation. Randy Dotinga (Voice of San Diego)
Featured News
Pfizer Settles Remaining Effexor XR Antitrust Claims for $25.5 Million
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
South Korean Regulator Approves LG Uplus and Kakao Mobility EV Charging Venture
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Dismisses Doctors’ Antitrust Suit Against Ohio Health System
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Paramount CEO Bob Bakish Steps Down as Merger Inches Closer
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
EU Brands Apple’s iPadOS as Gatekeeper in Tech Crackdown
Apr 29, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI