Federal Antitrust Agencies And Public Policy Towards Antitrust And Intellectual Property Pdf

federal antitrust agencies and public policy towards antitrust and intellectual property pdf

File Name: federal antitrust agencies and public policy towards antitrust and intellectual property .zip
Size: 2739Kb
Published: 17.05.2021

And there is certainly support in the earlier case law for that point of view. Xerox Corp. In this last two decades, however, a fundamental change in legal perspective has gradually taken place.

The decline in antitrust enforcement in the United States has been a project of conservatives for decades. Since the s, the range of conduct that would be condemned by courts as anticompetitive has decreased significantly, 1 and the evidence required to prove any particular anticompetitive harm has increased appreciably, resulting in much more freedom for business to seek profit through anticompetitive means. The conservative goal of freeing business from the constraints of antitrust law was, in theory, to obtain productivity growth that would benefit consumers through lower costs and new products. That motive—even if it characterized some of these adherents of the so-called Chicago School—has been joined, or perhaps overtaken, by support from some companies and some think tanks that want to see companies earn higher profits unconstrained by the antitrust laws. Without regard for good research or scientific evidence—as the literature review below shows—today, many continue to claim a benefit for consumers from a limited enforcement agenda.

Yale School of Management

The decline in antitrust enforcement in the United States has been a project of conservatives for decades. Since the s, the range of conduct that would be condemned by courts as anticompetitive has decreased significantly, 1 and the evidence required to prove any particular anticompetitive harm has increased appreciably, resulting in much more freedom for business to seek profit through anticompetitive means.

The conservative goal of freeing business from the constraints of antitrust law was, in theory, to obtain productivity growth that would benefit consumers through lower costs and new products.

That motive—even if it characterized some of these adherents of the so-called Chicago School—has been joined, or perhaps overtaken, by support from some companies and some think tanks that want to see companies earn higher profits unconstrained by the antitrust laws.

Without regard for good research or scientific evidence—as the literature review below shows—today, many continue to claim a benefit for consumers from a limited enforcement agenda. The experiment of enforcing the antitrust laws a little bit less each year has run for 40 years, and scholars are now in a position to assess the evidence.

The accompanying interactive database of research papers for the first time assembles in one place the most recent economic literature bearing on antitrust enforcement in the United States. The review is restricted to work published since the year in order to limit its size and emphasize work using the most recent data-driven empirical techniques.

The papers in the interactive database are organized by enforcement topic, with each of these topics addressed in a short overview of what the literature demonstrates over the past 19 years. These topics are:. The bulk of the research featured in our interactive database on these key topics in competition enforcement in the United States finds evidence of significant problems of underenforcement of antitrust law.

The research that addresses economic theory qualifies or rejects assumptions long made by U. And the empirical work finds evidence of the exercise of undue market power in many dimensions, among them price, quality, innovation, and marketplace exclusion.

Overall, the picture is one of a divergence between judicial opinions on the one hand, and the rigorous use of modern economics to advance consumer welfare on the other. One of the most influential principles of the Chicago School is concern that overenforcement would be worse than underenforcement.

Overenforcement occurs when antitrust rules and enforcement are too strict and condemn procompetitive conduct; underenforcement occurs when the antitrust rules and enforcement are too lenient and allow anticompetitive conduct to occur. According to Chicago School proponents, the harms from condemning procompetitive conduct are likely to be larger and harder to fix than harms from underenforcement, primarily because their theories hold that the market will promptly correct the latter.

And the most recent research on competitiveness in the U. This summary also responds directly to the call from current enforcers for new cases. My phone number is pretty easy to find.

Department of Justice, Makan Delrahim, also calls for an "evidence-based approach" that is "built on credible evidence that a practice harms competition.

This collection attempts to assemble the relevant literature so that the two agencies can bring meritorious cases backed by rigorous economics. By creating this review in an academic context duplication across agencies is eliminated, the coverage is comprehensive, and the results can be released publicly. Such a public database makes it both clear and common knowledge how much evidence there is on each side of important antitrust contentions.

An important point to emphasize is just how useful competition enforcement is to those interested in broader public policy issues. Many are concerned about widening income and wealth inequality in the United States and the political instability it is bringing about.

Improving competition is one policy that should appeal across the ideological spectrum. While there are many possible policies that redistribute resources from rich to poor, many of these are taxes of some form that come with shadow costs, such as a disincentive to work or invest, that must be weighed against the benefits the public goods of redistribution.

By contrast, more competition in the markets where consumers shop redistributes from corporate profits—primarily earned by the richest 10 percent through their equity holdings—to the bottom 90 percent through the lower prices they pay for goods and services.

But this change has positive effects on both social welfare and marketplace incentives. Moving a market from monopoly to competitive outcomes increases consumer surplus, increases quantity consumed, reduces deadweight loss, and allocates resources across the U. Firms facing more competition have incentives to innovate more vigorously. Thus, competition policy brings its traditional benefits of price, quality, and innovation to consumers and has the side effect of decreasing economic inequality.

In addition, the ability of businesses to enter markets without needing to overcome barriers put up by entrenched, incumbent firms, and the ability of consumers to choose among products offered by multiple competitors increases economic freedom.

Antitrust enforcement is thus one of the best choices policymakers have for increasing productivity, real income, and equality.

Downloadable files of this introduction and the database of antitrust literature: files supported by a grant from Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Introduction to Antitrust Literature Database pdf.

Review of Recent Antitrust Literature pdf updated Jun Review of Recent Antitrust Literature xlsx updated Jun The effectiveness of the U. The first is jurisprudential doctrines that courts develop. The second is the prosecutorial discretion that enforcers—the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general—employ.

And the third is the fiscal resources provided to the enforcers. It can be difficult to disentangle the role of these factors. The federal government, for example, may bring fewer antitrust cases because it has changed its enforcement philosophy. Similarly, a change in enforcement discretion or the courts broadening the scope of the antitrust law could lead to increased enforcement. Indirectly, judicial or evidentiary rules that increase the cost of successfully pursuing cases can reduce the number of antitrust cases and the reverse could increase it.

Increasing or decreasing appropriations for the antitrust enforcement agencies also can affect both the degree of antitrust enforcement and its impact. Of course, the issue is not whether there are more or fewer enforcement actions or whether antitrust doctrine has become more or less strict. Rather, the question is whether the antitrust laws as interpreted, and the cases being brought, are protecting competition. Nonetheless, antitrust enforcement looks dramatically different today compared to the period prior to the late s.

Narrowing legal doctrines have limited the scope of the antitrust laws. One does not have to believe the antitrust enforcement of the s and s was optimal to be concerned about the state of antitrust law today. According to its workload reports, the Antitrust Division has, for all practical purposes, stopped bringing standalone Section 2 cases—Section 2 being the section in the landmark Sherman.

Antitrust Act of , the first federal anti-monopoly law—pursuing only one monopolization case in this century. Conduct that violates Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act may also violate Section 1, which bars agreements in restraint of trade.

For instance, exclusive contracts signed by a monopolist and another party that harm competition could be illegal under both sections. If Section 1 is the dominant theory, the division only reports it as a Section 1 case. Alternatively, based on the legal standards or evidence, the division might not pursue a monopolization claim and rely solely on Section 1. This is arguably an exclusion case; however, the complaint alleges only a violation of Section 1. Since , the Antitrust Division has brought five or more cases only once.

The FTC reports enforcement activity only since , and it distinguishes only between merger and nonmerger cases. See Figure 3. As to mergers, we do not see a trend in overall enforcement at the two antitrust enforcement agencies, despite a significant increase in economic activity over this time period.

A recent article by John Kwoka, the Neal F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of economics at Northeastern University, shows that the agency challenges a narrower range of mergers than it did 20 years ago. Current economic literature illuminates the lenient standards that have developed in antitrust law in the United States.

The pages that follow break out the different types of modern research on competition and antitrust to demonstrate where the evidence stands in mostly stark contrast to conservative assumptions.

Horizontal mergers refer to acquisitions involving direct competitors. Horizontal mergers are a large and critical element of antitrust enforcement.

The recent literature suggests that merger enforcement has been too lax in the 21st century. A number of empirical papers find that mergers increase prices for consumers and businesses and that mergers can stifle innovation. In just the past 10 years, the economics literature documents a striking amount of research demonstrating that market power is being created and exploited through horizontal mergers.

This literature spans a broad range of economic arenas, from healthcare to retail to intellectual property, among many others. For instance, research by professors Orely C. Ashenfelter at Princeton University, Martin C. Hosken at the Federal Trade Commission concludes that about half of the consummated horizontal mergers they examine lead to economically significant price increases by the newly combined firms. Interestingly, anticompetitive effects are even prevalent in mergers too small to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the statute that requires parties to report their merger or acquisition to the government before completing the transaction.

The evidence overall supports the conclusions that interpretations of U. Antitrust enforcers should be more aggressive in challenging mergers. Courts should give more weight to the specific facts of how market power can be accumulated in any given case.

And all parties should pay careful attention to the benefits of potential competition and nascent competitors. Finally, premerger notification of smaller mergers would help to prevent anticompetitive acquisitions, particularly in more rural areas where geographic competition is important. Typically, antitrust enforcers look for two potential anticompetitive effects of mergers.

As a result of eliminating competition, a merger may make it more likely that the remaining firms harm competition through coordinated interaction. With fewer competitors, firms might be more likely to engage in explicit or tacit collusion.

The bulk of the focus in most cases is on unilateral effects; this was driven by two developments in the economics literature. Economic arguments from the s and s concluded that it was unlikely, even in highly concentrated markets, that firms would coordinate without an explicit agreement. Meanwhile, economists developed new models and empirical techniques to identify mergers that were likely to lead to unilateral effects, thus giving courts a sense of science and precision on that topic.

The structural, or market-share, presumption is the main tool enforcers have to capture the risk of coordinated effects. Baker Hughes Inc. The stronger the prima facie case, the more evidence defendants need to rebut it.

Recent academic literature, however, has establishesd that coordinated interaction is a much more pressing danger than had been thought. The field of applied game theory has advanced greatly over the past 40 years, and the models in that literature can explain a large range of behavior by rational and sophisticated actors.

The collusive outcomes that can be sustained without a formal contract and recourse to courts are determined by the patience of the parties, the cost and precision of punishing a rival, and the financial reward from continuing to collude versus defecting from the coordinated efforts among a smaller set of firms, among other factors. Indeed, recent empirical studies have confirmed the importance of coordinated effects across a number of industries such as airlines, health insurance, and beer.

This literature provides support for a complete rethinking of the jurisprudence on coordinated effects. Before this literature, the structural presumption stood in as a useful, if not tailored, enforcement guide.

But its weakening, by both the courts and the enforcement agencies, and the lack of adoption of modern economics in the area, has left consumers with little protection from coordinated effects.

United States antitrust law

Skip to content. Intellectual Property Law. Published in Landslide , Vol. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

Published by: S. Companies across the globe are still defending themselves from the onslaught of civil conspiracy antitrust claims that followed right after the Great Recession. During the Great Recession, companies often had to change business strategies in order to respond to a changed economy, for example, by reducing output so as to respond effectively to the decreased consumer demands. The business reasons for such decisions seemed obvious at the time of the Recession — so obvious that the companies did not always document those. However, not surprisingly, companies that made similar products also reacted to the Great Recession similarly, just as we all humans decide independently to use umbrellas while walking through the rain. Long story short, it was alleged that companies agreed to use umbrellas while walking in the rain.

There is bipartisan support for such measures. Biden may also work with Congress to give the antitrust agencies the ability to seek civil fines for monopolization. Google Litigation. Among its first antitrust order of business, the Biden Department of Justice DOJ will need to decide whether to continue to litigate the antitrust lawsuit against Google that the Trump administration filed last month. While Democrats questioned the October timing of this lawsuit — believing it to be, at least in part, a pre-election, political maneuver — a Biden DOJ may continue to pursue the case.


Yet, as recent litigation in the Federal,. Ninth, and District of to the purposes of intellectual property and antitrust laws, which are designed to encourage innovation). Bork, Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act, 9 J.L. & ECON. 7, 7 enforcement agencies been forthright about their position on this issue.


COVID-19 and New Exemptions Under the Antitrust Laws - A Global Review

Antitrust deals with the area of law concerned with maintaining competition in private markets. Antitrust law courses study the law and economics of monopolies and cartels, including the potential benefits and harms of these market structures. Antitrust evaluates business conduct that may lead to monopoly and cartel outcomes, and the statutes, case law and other governmental policies that attempt to maintain competitive market structures and competitive conduct. The study of antitrust law at the Law Center begins with the basic Antitrust Law course.

This year's conference has been rescheduled for Thursday, August Friday, August 28, This conference is organized by Daniel F. Agenda pdf.

Georgetown Law

Primary navigation

The night skyline of San Francisco's financial district is pictured from Montgomery Street, January Entry barriers in many sectors—especially in communications services, health care, and information technology—have created an environment in which firms can earn profits well above competitive levels. The share of corporations earning profits above competitive levels has risen since the late s. Large firms in many sectors—especially in communication services, health care, and information technology IT —now have market power that allows them to maintain prices above competitive levels. This has important implications for the U. When firms are earning economic rents—returns to capital beyond what a competitive market would normally allow—income is redistributed upward to owners. The economic rents that flow to these owners function like a tax on everyone else, lowering real wages and shifting overall income shares away from workers.

Yale School of Management

Двухцветный посмотрел на часы Беккера. Его лицо казалось растерянным. - Обычно я напиваюсь только к четырем! - Он опять засмеялся. - Как быстрее добраться до аэропорта. - У входа возьмешь такси.

Моя любовь без воска. Это было его местью. Она посвятила Дэвида в некоторые секреты криптографии и, желая держать его в состоянии полной готовности к неожиданностям, посылала ему записки, зашифрованные не слишком сложным образом.

Они не хотят и слышать о том, чтобы посадить меня в самолет. На авиалиниях работают одни бездушные бюрократы. У меня нет денег на новый билет. - Где твои родители? - спросил Беккер. - В Штатах.

2 COMMENTS

Obrilenttu1995

REPLY

tion,"' a tension between intellectual property and antitrust policy has always Justice and the Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of of anti- trust analysis, the Agencies regard intellectual property as being es- ING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY () reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep.

Liedogami

REPLY

Competition law is a law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies.

LEAVE A COMMENT