Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, June 6, 2011

Prosecution and Leniency Programs: A Fool's Game

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Julien Sauvagnat, Toulouse School of Economics describes Prosecution and Leniency Programs: A Fool's Game.

ABSTRACT: We present a model in which the Antitrust Authority is privately informed about the strength of a cartel case. We show that the Antitrust Authority can then obtain confessions even when it has no chance of finding hard evidence. More generally, offering leniency raises the conviction rate, which in turn enhances cartel desistance and cartel deterrence. We also show that the optimal leniency scheme involves a single informant rule. That is, amnesty should be given only when a single cartel member reports information. Finally, we discuss the policy implications of the model.

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

World Bank Looking for a Competition Economist

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

For more details see here.

Job # 110996
Job Title Competition Economist
Job Family Private Sector Development
Location Istanbul, Turkey
Appointment Local Hire
Job Posted 02-Jun-2011
Closing Date 17-Jun-2011
Language Requirements English [Essential]; French [Desired]; Spanish [Desired]

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Rewarding Innovation Efficiently: Research Spill-Overs and Exclusive IP Rights

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Vincenzo Denicolò, University of Bologna - Department of Economics and Luigi Alberto Franzoni, University of Bologna - Faculty of Economics explore Rewarding Innovation Efficiently: Research Spill-Overs and Exclusive IP Rights.

ABSTRACT: We investigate the conditions for the desirability of exclusive intellectual property rights for innovators, as opposed to weak rights allowing for some degree of imitation and ex-post competition. The comparison between the two alternatives reduces to a specific "ratio test," which suggests that strong, exclusive IP rights are preferable when competition from potential imitators is weak, the innovation attracts large R&D investments, and research spill-overs are small.

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

How Retail Beef and Bread Prices Respond to Changes in Ingredient and Input and Costs

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Edward Roeger and Ephraim Leibtag explain How Retail Beef and Bread Prices Respond to Changes in Ingredient and Input and Costs.

ABSTRACT: The extent to which cost changes pass through a vertically organized production process depends on the value added by each producer in the chain as well as a number of other organizational and marketing factors at each stage of production. Using 36 years of monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics price indices data (1972-2008), we model pass-through behavior for beef and bread, two retail food items with different levels of processing. Both the farmto-wholesale and wholesale-to-retail price responses are modeled to allow for the presence of structural breaks in the underlying long-term relationships between price series. Broad differences in price behavior are found not only between food categories (retail beef prices respond more to farm-price changes than do retail bread prices) but also across stages in the supply chain. While farm-to-wholesale relationships generally appear to be symmetric, retail prices have a more compl! icated response behavior. For both bread and beef, the passthrough from wholesale to retail is weaker than that from farm to wholesale.

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The 4th IPR Seminar Comparison & Analysis of IPR Licensing Guidelines of Several Competition Authorities, in an International Context, Friday, June 10th, 2011

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol


2011 ICR Law Center Special Seminar Series

Regulations over Intellectual Property Rights Licensing

 

The 4th IPR Seminar

Comparison & Analysis of IPR Licensing Guidelines of

Several Competition Authorities, in an International Context

 

Date:  Friday, June 10th, 2011 1:30 pm ~ 6 pm

Venue : Kangnam-Gu Yeoksam-Dong KIPS Center Intl Conference Room (19th Fl)

 

The Innovation, Competition & Regulation Center (the “ICR Law Center”) specializes in expert research on theoretical and practical issues that arise in the context of Competition, Regulatory, Communications and Intellectual Property Law. We began our work in September 2010. Since then, we have launched a successful line of seminars, conferences and lectures that has inspired comprehensive discussion on the most current issues.

On this note, the ICR Law Center has kicked off a new series of seminars on “Regulations over Intellectual Property Rights Licensing”. This seminar series comes into place as concerns over abuse of Intellectual Property rights have grown lately. The ICR Law Center realized that while the need for a more coherent legal scheme is urgent, there is a dearth of reliable research on the subject in Korea. In particular, there is a pressing demand for interdisciplinary studies on the theoretical and practical issues that lie in the junction between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law.

The June seminar shall conduct a comprehensive comparison and analysis of IPR Guidelines in an international context. Previously, the March seminar touched on IPR issues in the Software industry, the April seminar on IPR issues in the IT industry and the May seminar on IPR issues in the Pharmaceutical industry.

As we wrap up the IPR seminar series with this June seminar, we hope our efforts to gather premier experts in the field of Intellectual Property and Competition laws to discuss the legal issues as well as economic perspectives have provided a balanced base for policy-making appropriate in a Korean context. We also appreciate the great amount of positive feedback that has valued our interdisciplinary approach on both theoretical and practical issues.

            We plan to invite the best international experts from academia, regulatory institutions, international organizations, business and law firms. We welcome all within the professional community to join our efforts to foster international exchange and elevate the integrity of our legal systems. Finally, we thank our sponsors at the law firms of Kim & Chang, Lee & Ko, Shin & Kim and Yulchon for making this event possible.

 

ICR Law Center Director  Ryu, Jin Hee

Program (Simultaneous Interpretation to be provided)

13:00 ~ 13:30

Registration 

13:30 ~ 13:40

Greetings

by Ryu, Jin Hee (Director, ICR Law Center/ Professor, Korea Univ. Law School)

13:40 ~ 16:00

Part 1: Presentations

Moderator:

Kim, Jong Min

 (Professor,

Kook Min Univ.

Law School)

Session I : Kerin Coughlin (Attorney, Constantine Cannon)

“U.S. Competition Guidelines for Intellectual Property Licensing Overview & Comparison with Korean Guidelines”

Session II : Meng Yanbei (Professor, Renmin Univ. of China Law School)

“Regulating & Limiting the Regulation:

Research on IP Licensing from China’s Antimonopoly Law

- Concurrent discussion over formulation of China’s Guidelines

for Anti-monopoly Enforcement

in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights

 

Session III : Kim, Hyun A (Attorney, Shin & Kim)

“Issues & Suggestions for

the Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights in Korea”

 

Session IV : Park, Hwan Sung (Attorney, Lee & Ko)

“Thoughts on IPR Licensing Guidelines of Competition Authorities

from a Comparative Law Perspective”

 

Session V : Rho, Sang Sub (Director, Market Watch Division)

“Current Application & Future Tasks of

the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s IPR Guidelines”

 

16:00 ~ 16:20

Coffee Break

16:20 ~ 18:00

Part 2: Open Discussion

Moderator:

Kim, Jong Min

 (Professor,

Kook Min Univ.

Law School)

Open Discussion :  All Session I Presentators

 

Discussion Panel : 

 

Ko, Choong Gon (Executive Directors, LG Electronics IP Center)

Kim, Bong Sub ( Patent Attorney, Kim & Chang)

Kim, Tae Man (Director, Korea Intellectual Property Office)

Hong, Dae Sik (Professor, Sogang Univ. Law School)

18:00 ~

Closing & Dinner

IPR Seminar Series Guide

 

2011 ICR Law Center Special Seminar Series (Venue: Seoul, Korea)

 

Regulations over Intellectual Property Rights Licensing

Sponsors: Kim & Chang, Lee & Ko, Shin & Kim, Yulchon

 

  1. Prologue & New Scholars’ Forum

February 11, 2011

 

  1. Legal Regulation on the Unfair Use of Intellectual Property Rights

Sohn, Ho-Jin (Adjunct Professor, Han Kyung University)

 

  1. Regulation on the Anti-competitive Practices of Patent Trolls

Lee, Sang-Joo (Attorney/ Managing Director, Samsung Electronics)

 

  1. A New Criteria for Granting Injunctive Relief on Patent Infringements

Shim, Mi-Rang (Lecturer, Korea University)

 

  1. First Seminar

in collaboration with The Sejong Intellectual Property Research Center at Choong Nam Univ.

March 7, 2011

 

Part 1 – The Importance of Regulations over Intellectual Property Rights

 

1.   The Importance and Effects of Legal Regulatory Systems

on the Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights

 Sang-Jo Chung (Professor, S.N.U. Law School; Director, Technology & Law Center)

 

2.  Basic Strategies of Korea's Intellectual Property Policy

and the Regulation over Intellectual Property Rights

Tae-Hyun Choi (Deputy Head, I.P. Strategic Planning, Prime Minister's Office)

 

Part 2 – Overview of Issues of IPR Licensing in the Software Industry

 

1.   Compulsory Licensing as an Antitrust Remedy

Choi, Jae Pil (Professor, Michigan State Univ. Dept. of Economics)

 

2. Antitrust Regulations over Licensing Practices of Intellectual Property Rights;

the IBM Case

Sohn, Seung Woo (Professor, Dankook Univ. Law School)

 

3. Competition Law Issues of Open-source Software & Intellectual Property Rights

Lee, Chul Nam (Choong Nam Univ. Law School)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. III.             Second Seminar

in collaboration with the Social Science Korea/Law & Economics Research Team at Korea Univ.

April 8, 2011

 

Overview of Issues of IPR Licensing in the IT Industry

-          Standard Setting and FRAND Licensing Terms

-          Cross Licensing and Patent Pools

 

  1.  Standard Setting Enforcement

Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act

Alden Abbott (Deputy Director, U.S. Federal Trade Commission)

 

  1.  Antitrust Regulations over Deceptive Practices during Standard-Setting Process;

Criteria for Liabilities and Plausibility of Regulations

Kwon, Kuk Hyun (Attorney, Kim & Chang)

 

  1.  Making Sense of FRAND Commitments: Theory and EC Application

Anne Layne (Vice President, Compass LexEcon)

 

  1.  Problems related to Standard-Setting Organizations and Patent Pools

Jung, Yeon Duk (Professor, Kun Kook Univ. Law School)

 

  1.  Korean Competition Laws and FRAND Terms

Lee, Seung Kyu (Korea Fair Trade Commission)

 

  1. IV.              Third Seminar

May 2, 2011

 

Topic:

Issues of IPR Licensing in the Pharmaceutical Industry

with a focus on Reverse Payments and Extension of Patent Life

 

  1. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Briefing

on Pharmaceutical ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Settlements

   Markus Meier (Assistant Director, U.S. Federal Trade Commission)

 

  1. Economic Analysis of Patent Dispute Settlements

Nahm, Jae Hyun (Professor, Dept. of Economics at Korea Univ.)

 

  1. Pharmaceutical Industry, IPR Licensing and Antitrust Regulations in Japan

Maki Kunimatsu (Professor, Dept. of Business Administration at Chuo Univ.(JP))

 

  1. KFTC Enforcement in IPR Licensing Issues of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Kim, Jun Ha (Director, Korea Fair Trade Commission)

 

  1. Regulation of Reverse Payment Agreements in Competition Laws

Lee, Suk Jun (U.S. Attorney, Yulchon)

 

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Internet access and investment incentives for broadband service providers

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Edmond Baranes and Jean-Christophe Poudou, University Montpellier, discuss Internet access and investment incentives for broadband service providers.

ABSTRACT: This paper studies a model of the Internet broadband market as a platform in order to show how different pricing schemes from the so-called "net neutrality " can increase economic efficiency by allowing more investment of access providers and enhancing consumers surplus and social welfare. We show that departing from the "net neutrality", where flat rates are used, introducing termination fees can increase incentives to invest for the ISP and enhance social surplus.

June 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Most Cited US Antitrust Law Professors by Westlaw in the JLR Database

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

I have done a Westlaw search in the JLR database for all tenure and tenure track antitrust law professors who have written antitrust scholarship in the past two years (which should explain some omissions of people who have written seminal works but are not active scholars in the area). I also include what other fields the person writes in if they are not exclusively or even primarily antitrust. Below is the list. Please let me know if I have missed anyone.

Herb Hovenkamp - Iowa 3522 (Legal History)

Louis Kaplow - Harvard 3170 (Tax, Law and Econ)

George Priest – Yale 2494 (Law and Econ)

Robert Pitofsky – Georgetown 1651

Daniel Rubinfeld – Berkeley/NYU 1394 (Law and Econ)

Einer Elhauge – Harvard 1368 (Admin)

Fred McChesney – Miami 1111 (Law and Econ)

Eleanor Fox – NYU 1095

Steve Salop – Georgetown 1061

Tim Muris – George Mason 1028

Keith Hylton – BU 1027 (Law and Econ)

Bill Kovacic – George Washington 956

Spencer Waller – Chicago Loyola 775

Bob Lande – Baltimore 748

Jon Baker – American 741

Jeff Harrison – Florida 674 (Law and Econ)

Randy Picker – Chicago 666 (Law and Econ)

Thomas Cotter – Minnesota 665 (IP)

Harry First – NYU 594

Bill Page - Florida 589

Bruce Kobayashi – George Mason 569 (Law and Econ)

Phil Weiser – Colorado 561 (Telecom)

David Gerber – Chicago Kent 543

Shubha Ghosh – Wisconsin 531 (IP)

Christopher Leslie – Irvine 454

Howard Shelanski – Georgetown 453 (Telecom)

George Hay - Cornell 446

Tom Arthur - Emory 417

Ed Swaine – George Washington 409 (International Law)

Warren Grimes – Southwestern 408

Mike Carrier – Rutgers-Camden 395

Daniel Crane - Michigan 394

John Lopatka – Penn State 381

Andy Gavil – Howard 373

Joe Bauer – Notre Dame 360

Alan Meese – William & Mary 321

Mike Jacobs – DePaul 310

Aaron Edlin – Berkeley 294

Peter Carstensen – Wisconsin 294

Tim Greaney – St. Louis 283 (Health Care)

Ned Cavanagh – St. Johns 265

Mark Pattersen – Fordham 251 (IP)

Barak Richman – Duke 203

Marina Lao – Seton Hall 199

Joe Miller – Georgia 184 (IP)

Scott Hemphill – Columbia 180 (IP)

Darren Bush – Houston 173 (Regulation)

Josh Davis – San Francisco 163 (Civil Procedure)

Josh Wright – George Mason 141

Danny Sokol – Florida 130

Salil Mehra 127 – Temple (Asian Law)

Jack Kirkwood – Seattle 125

Maurice Stucke – Tennessee 115

Steven Semeraro – Thomas Jefferson 112

Mike McCann – Vermont (Sports Law) 109

Barak Orbach – Arizona (Regulation) 97

Deven Desai – Thomas Jefferson (IP) 97

Thom Lambert – Missouri 95

Marc Edelman 87 – Barry (Sports Law)

Abraham Wickelgren – Texas (Law and Econ) 87

Beth Farmer – Penn State 80

Chris Sagers – Cleveland State 80

Hillary Greene – Connecticut (IP) 73

Jesse Markham – San Francisco 61

Anu Bradford – Chicago (includes under maiden name)(International Law) 50

Mark Bauer – Stetson 45

Max Huffman – Indiana-Indianapolis 45

Gabe Feldman – Tulane (Sports Law) 29

Tom Horton – South Dakota 29

Wentong Zheng – Florida 22 (International Trade)

Shahar Dillbary – Alabama 18 (IP)

Babette Boliek – Pepperdine 13 (Regulated Industries)

Rebecca Haw – Vanderbilt 3 (entry level hire)


 

June 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Role of Hearing Officers in EU Competition Proceedings: A Historical and Practical Perspective

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Michael Albers and Jeremie Jourdan (both European Commisson) discuss The Role of Hearing Officers in EU Competition Proceedings: A Historical and Practical Perspective.

ABSTRACT: The role of the Hearing Officers evolved over time since their creation in 1982. Today, they are the guardians of the rights of defence, and contribute to the objectivity, transparency and efficiency of EU competition proceedings. In the current debate about due process, suggestions have been made to strengthen their role further.

June 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)