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
Federal Court to Hear Case on Trump’s Firing of FTC Democrats
May 20, 2025 by
CPI
UK Government Suffers Third Successive Defeat on Data (Use and Access) Bill
May 20, 2025 by
CPI
Sex Toy Retailer Says Google Breaches EU Digital Market Rules
May 20, 2025 by
CPI
Latham & Watkins Expands Brussels Antitrust Team
May 20, 2025 by
CPI
Brazil’s Antitrust Watchdog Expected to Approve Pet Retail Merger Without Conditions
May 20, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Healthcare Antitrust
May 14, 2025 by
CPI
Healthcare & Antitrust: What to Expect in the New Trump Administration
May 14, 2025 by
Nana Wilberforce, John W O'Toole & Sarah Pugh
Patent Gaming and Disparagement: Commission Fines Teva For Improperly Protecting Its Blockbuster Medicine
May 14, 2025 by
Blaž Višnar, Boris Andrejaš, Apostolos Baltzopoulos, Rieke Kaup, Laura Nistor & Gianluca Vassallo
Strategic Alliances in the Pharma Sector: An EU Competition Law Perspective
May 14, 2025 by
Christian Ritz & Benedikt Weiss
Monopsony Power in the Hospital Labor Market
May 14, 2025 by
Kevin E. Pflum & Christian Salas