March 2014, Volume 4, Number 3
|
|
|
|
We’re mostly looking at the intellectual interpinnings of antitrust this month. The late Phillip Areeda inspired our first two entries and then we move on to exclusive dealing, fines, Google, bright lines, risk sharing, technology, vertical integration, and public entities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arbitration in the Google/MMI order
Here is a roadmap for understanding how and when arbitration could occur under the Google/MMI Order.
Peggy Bayer Femenella & Susan Huber (FTC’s Competition Matters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antitrust & Associations: “Standard Setting Can Be Risky Business”
Recent court decisions reflect plaintiffs’ proclivity to sue SSOs and their corporate members when they believe themselves to have been injured by real or imagined conspiracies that have infiltrated the standard-setting process.
Burt Braverman (Canadian Competition & Regulatory Law)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antitrust fines may increase distortions in the economy
It is perhaps time to change these distortive rules-of-thumb that make revenue so central for calculating penalties, if the only thing the distortions buy for us is saving the costs of data collection and illegal profits estimation.
Vasiliki Bageri, Yannis Katsoulacos, & Giancarlo Spagnolo (Competition Academia)
|
|
|
|
|
Widgets All The Way Down
Comcast further expanding its distribution footprint could create concerns about its vertical integration that weren’t there when it was smaller.
Adam Miller (UpwardPricingPressure)
|
|
|
|
|
|