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
Croatian Supermarket Chain Tommy Cleared to Acquire Brodokomerc Nova
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
X and Unilever Settle Antitrust Dispute, Continuing Partnership
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Allows Antitrust Claims Against GoDaddy to Proceed
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Court Ruling Opens Door for Microsoft to Sell Xbox Games on Android Without Google’s Cut
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Realtors Appeal to Supreme Court Over DOJ’s Investigation into Antitrust Violations
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh