Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Vertical Bargaining and Retail Competition: What Drives Countervailing Power?

Germain Gaudin, European Commission - Directorate General for Competition; Telecom ParisTech asks Vertical Bargaining and Retail Competition: What Drives Countervailing Power?

ABSTRACT: This article investigates the effects of changes in market concentration on the equilibrium prices in a supply chain. Results are derived from a theoretical model of bilateral bargaining between upstream and downstream firms which allows for general forms of demand and retail competition. Whether countervailing buyer power arises, in the form of lower input prices following greater concentration downstream, depends on the pass‐through rate of input prices to retail prices. Countervailing buyer power generally does not translate into lower retail prices because of heightened market power at the retail level.

Implementing a Competition Law System: Closing Seminar & Panel Discussion 23rd November; Warsaw

Implementing a Competition Law System: Closing Seminar & Panel Discussion

 23^rd November; Warsaw

 

This event closes a two-year-long investigation into introduction and development of a system of competition law in Poland conducted by Dr Marek Martyniszyn (Queen's University Belfast) and Dr hab. Maciej Bernatt (University of Warsaw). This study uniquely benefited from in-depth interviews with individuals who shaped the Polish system over nearly thirty years of its existence (inclusive of all former heads of the agency, judges, leading practitioners and agency advisors) and from analysis of a variety of newly-gathered data and statistics.

Venue: Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw

Programme

10:00     Registration & coffee

10:30     Welcome & Project’s Background: Dr Marek Martyniszyn, Queen’s University Belfast

10:40     Opening remarks: Professor William Kovacic, George Washington University (video message)

10:50     Presentation of the key findings: Dr Marek Martyniszyn, Queen’s University Belfast & Dr hab. Maciej Bernatt, CARS, University of Warsaw

11:50     Panel discussion (in Polish)

               Panel Members:

               Judge Dariusz Dąbrowski, Deputy President of the District Court in Warsaw

               Mr Marek Niechciał, President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (to be confirmed)

               Dr Marta Sendrowicz, Competition Law Society

               Ms Agnieszka Stefanowicz-Barańska, Competition Law Society

               Professor Agata Jurkowska-Gomułka, University of Information Technology and Management

               Chair: Professor Tadeusz Skoczny, CARS, University of Warsaw

12:30     Plenary discussion (in Polish)

13:00     Expected closing of the event

 

Free registration available via http://go.qub.ac.uk/Warsaw

 

 

 

Competition and Public Procurement

Albert Sanchez-Graells provides thoughts on Competition and Public Procurement.

ABSTRACT: The developments discussed in this survey article show that the interaction between competition and public procurement law keeps getting stronger. The survey relies on examples from EU jurisdictions to show that competition authorities clearly target instances of bid rigging as one of their top enforcement priorities. However, the quashing of some of these decisions in judicial review in Sweden also shows the need for refined bid rigging analysis, as some national courts are unwilling to accept the categorisation of bid rigging as an anticompetitive agreement ‘by object’ (II). The article also reports on how the UK’s competition authority has sought to develop screening algorithms to facilitate the detection of collusive practices by...

 

HORIZONTAL MERGERS AND INNOVATION

Bruno Jullien and Yassine Lefouili analyze HORIZONTAL MERGERS AND INNOVATION.

ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the effects of horizontal mergers on innovation. We rely on the existing academic literature and our own research to present the various positive and negative effects of mergers on innovation. Our analysis shows that the overall impact of a merger on innovation may be either positive or negative and sheds light on the circumstances under which each of these scenarios is likely to arise. We derive a number of policy implications regarding the way innovation effects should be handled by competition authorities in merger control and highlight the differences with the analysis of price effects.

 

THE NEW YORK BAR FOUNDATION 2019 ANTITRUST SECTION LAW STUDENT FELLOWSHIP

THE NEW YORK BAR FOUNDATION
2019 ANTITRUST SECTION
LAW STUDENT FELLOWSHIP

The New York Bar Foundation is pleased to announce the 2019 Antitrust
Section Law Student Fellowship, which has been established by the Foundation
through gifts from the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association.
The Fellowship will be awarded to up to four current first or second year law
students to work on antitrust and related matters in the public sector in the State
of New York during the summer of 2019.
About Antitrust Law

Antitrust laws prohibit business practices that deprive consumers of the benefits of
competition, including conduct that may result in higher prices for products or
harm consumers by discouraging innovation or depriving them of greater choices.
Antitrust laws can be enforced through criminal or civil investigations and cases.
Federal and state antitrust agencies have authority to enforce antitrust laws in the U.S.
In addition, there are many other countries with antitrust/competition laws. Antitrust
investigations often involve consideration of economic relationships among companies
and other participants in an industry and overall market dynamics.

Fellowship Program Goals

Provide law students an opportunity to experience antitrust and government
investigations practice during the summer after their first or second year of law
school and to increase the representation of lawyers from a diverse range of
backgrounds in the practice of antitrust law in New York. The ultimate goal of the
Fellowship is to forge relationships among antitrust practitioners throughout the State
of New York and foster greater diversity in the antitrust bar. Through the Fellowship,
a student will be provided a meaningful and appropriately supervised work experience
in the New York Office of New York Attorney General, Antitrust Bureau; the Federal
Trade Commission, Northeast Region; or the Department of Justice Antitrust Division,
New York Office. In past years, Fellows in our Fellowship Program reflected diversity
in many different ways, including having diverse backgrounds, educational and work
experience, and unique perspectives and interests in antitrust law and government
investigations.

The Fellowship

1. Up to four (4) Fellowships, each currently valued at $6,000, will be awarded
   to students to spend the summer of 2019 (10 weeks) working on antitrust
   matters in one of the following agencies: the New York Office of New
   York Attorney General, Antitrust Bureau; Federal Trade Commission, Northeast
   Region; or Department of Justice Antitrust Division, New York Office.
   Proof of U.S. citizenship may be required for employment with federal law
   enforcement agencies.
2. The Fellows will be guest members of the NYSBA Antitrust Section for two
   years starting with the award of the Fellowship.
3. The Fellows will be invited to attend Executive Committee meetings of the
   NYSBA Antitrust Section during the Summer and Fall of 2019.
4. The Fellows will be announced no later than February 28, 2019.
   Eligibility
5. The Fellowship is open to all first-year (1L) and second-year (2L) students (as of the
   Fall 2018 semester) who are capable of fulfilling the requested work hours and
   responsibilities and meet the criteria under the heading “Judging” below.
   Fellowship Length
6. The Fellowship will take place during the summer of 2019 for a period of 10
   weeks, between June and August 2019; the precise dates will be provided when the
   fellowship is awarded. The expected work requirement per week generally will be 35 to
   40 hours.
   
   Location of Fellowship
7. The 2019 Fellowship will take place in one of the following agencies: the New
   York Office of New York Attorney General, Antitrust Bureau; Federal Trade
   Commission, Northeast Region; or Department of Justice Antitrust Division, New
   York Office. Fellowship finalists will be interviewed in New York City in early 2019.
   Payment of Fellowship
   Each Fellow will receive $3,000 at the start of the Fellowship with the remaining
   $3,000 paid to each Fellow at the end of the Fellowship (no federal or state income
   taxes will be withheld and a 1099 will be issued to the student by January 31, 2019).
   Housing and Other Expenses
   Housing, transportation and all other expenses to participate in the Fellowship will
   be provided by the student. Finalists’ costs of out of town travel to participate in
   interviews in New York City may be reimbursed.
   
   Fellowship Application Requirements
   
   The applicant must submit the following:
   1. A completed application (application form below)
   2. Cover letter of interest
   3. Unofficial law school transcript (if available)
   4. Unofficial undergraduate school transcript
   5. Resume
   6. Two letters of recommendation
   7. One writing sample on any topic related to the law. The writing sample
   must be at least five pages but shall not exceed 10 typed pages doublespaced.
   Deadline
   All hard copy materials must be submitted by mail with a postmark on or before
   January 12, 2019.
   
   Judging
   
   A Fellowship Committee will undertake a careful review of all applications for
   the Fellowship, and will consider the criteria below in evaluating each candidate.
   No single criterion or combination of criteria will be dispositive.
   1. Work experience.
   2. Academic record.
   3. Leadership experience.
   4. Extracurricular activities and community service.
   5. Quality of written expression.
   6. Maturity, integrity and professionalism.
   7. Content and quality of application materials.
   8. Demonstrated interest in antitrust and/or consumer protection.
   9. New York permanent residence or demonstrated intent to reside
   and practice law in New York following graduation from law
   school.
   10. Diverse background (e.g., Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American,
   Latino/a, LGBT, Native American/Alaska Native, Physically Disabled).
   11. Any other relevant factors.
   
   Submission
   
   All materials must be submitted by mail with a postmark on or before January 12, 2019.
   Mail to:
   ANTITRUST FELLOWSHIP
   THE NEW YORK BAR FOUNDATION
   ONE ELK STREET
   ALBANY, NY 12207
   2019
   
   Antitrust Section
   Law Student Fellowship
   Provided by The New York Bar Foundation
   through gifts from the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association
   
   APPLICATION FORM
   Name:
   Permanent Address:
   Phone: Email:
   School Address:
   (if different)
   Law School attending:
   o Day student o Evening student
   Year of Law School Study as of December 1, 2018:
   Please indicate membership in any of the following diversity groups:
   o Asian or Pacific Islander — person having origins in any of the Far East
   Countries, South East Asia, the Indian subcontinent or the Pacific Islands
   o Black/African American
   o Latino/a — person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Cuban, Central or
   South American origin
   o Lesbian Gay Bisexual or Transgendered
   o Native American or Alaskan native — person having origins in any of the
   original peoples of America
   o Physically Disabled
   o Other
   Prior Education
   Dates
   College Name Address Major Attended Degree
   Attach the following materials to this application:
   1. A cover letter which indicates your interest in the practice of antitrust and/or
   consumer protection law in New York and the receipt of this Fellowship.
   2. An undergraduate school transcript. (Transcripts need not be official; finalists may
   be asked to provide official transcripts.)
   3. If available, a law school transcript.
   4. A resume describing your prior employment and other relevant activities and
   qualifications.
   5. Two letters of recommendation. (These may be the same as used for law
   school applications.)
   6. One writing sample on any topic related to the law. (Must be at least five but shall
   not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages.)
   Application deadline: All materials must be submitted by mail with a postmark on or
   before January 12, 2019.
   Mail applications to:
   ANTITRUST FELLOWSHIP
   THE NEW YORK BAR FOUNDATION
   ONE ELK STREET
   ALBANY, NY 12207
   Certification
   I hereby certify that all of the statements contained and information provided in this
   application, and in the attachments hereto, are truthful, to the best of my knowledge, and
   that I meet the eligibility requirements for the 2019 Antitrust Section Law Student
   Fellowship.
   Applicant's Signature Date
   Where did you hear about this fellowship opportunity?
   
   About the Antitrust Section of the New York Bar Association
   
   The Antitrust Law section provides a forum in which attorneys and law students can learn about
   and keep up with developments in competition law and complex litigation generally. The section
   covers not only U.S. national developments, but also international activity and New York State
   antitrust enforcement.
   
   Section activities include (1) monthly meetings of the group’s Executive Committee, (2) an
   annual day-long program and series of evening events, held each January in conjunction with the
   New York State Bar Association’s annual meeting, and (3) special programs in the mid-summer
   and fall.
   
   The Section also has six standing subcommittees, which focus on (1) diversity in the Section, (2)
   cartel and criminal practice, (3) class actions, (4) coordinated conduct (5) mergers, and (6)
   unilateral conduct. The subcommittees similarly hold regular meetings, special programs and
   brownbag discussions.
   
   Annual Meeting Events:
   
   The Section’s annual meeting events consist of topical panels, presented during the day, followed
   by a reception, dinner and dessert buffet in the evening. The evening events are attended by
   roughly 350 persons, and the day events by about 100.
   For the 2018 annual meeting, the featured dinner speaker was Andrew Finch, Principal
   Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
   Other Section Activities:
   
   The Executive Committee’s monthly meetings handle regular business, followed by a one-hour
   speaker’s presentation. These monthly programs cover a wide range of subjects, which recently
   have included the legal and economic implications of institutional investors’ ownership of equity
   interests in competing companies; recent criminal antitrust enforcement actions brought by the
   Office of the New York Attorney General; the use of statistical screens and other empirical
   analyses to detect antitrust conspiracy and other forms of market manipulation; legal and
   economic issues related to patent assertion entities; and other topics. Some of these programs
   offer CLE credit at no charge. The Section also sponsors a Summer merger program, which most
   recently addressed antirust issues associated with high tech mergers, and an annual Taft Lecture,
   which most recently featured Professors Herbert Hovenkamp and Dennis Carlton, who spoke on
   the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ohio v American Express.
   
   The programs are open to Section members and non-members alike.
   The Section also sponsors a yearly writing competition open to students at law schools located in
   New York, and to New York state residents in law schools outside the State. The student whose
   paper is selected as the winning entry receives a $5000 award.
   
   Additional Information:
   There are more than 525 members of the Antitrust Section, and roughly 60 Executive
   Committee members. The Section’s website is located at:
   http://www.nysba.org/anti
   
   The website is regularly updated to link to materials presented at the Section’s programs, and
   to competition law developments generally.
   For further information about the Antitrust Section, contact the Section’s chair:
   Wesley R. Powell
   Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
   787 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10166
   wpowell@willkie.com
   
   
   

Will the CJEU’s Decision in MEO Change FRAND Disputes Globally?

J. Gregory Sidak & Urška Petrovčič ask Will the CJEU’s Decision in MEO Change FRAND Disputes Globally?

ABSTRACT: In April 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision in MEO v. Autoridade da Concorrência that clarified the circumstances in which price discrimination would trigger liability under Article 102(c) TFEU. The decision in MEO has so far received sparse attention from lawyers, academics, and competition law commentators. Yet, it represents an important addition to the analysis of price discrimination under EU competition law. The CJEU emphasized that Article 102(c) TFEU does not categorically prohibit a dominant firm from engaging in price discrimination, but instead prohibits only price discrimination that “tends to distort competition on the downstream market.” The CJEU also said that one cannot assume that price discrimination will have that prohibited effect, but rather one must examine the circumstances of each case to determine whether the challenged practice has a prohibited effect on the downstream market and thus violates Article 102(c) TFEU.

Although MEO concerned the licensing of copyrights, for two reasons it has important implications for disputes concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs) that are subject to the owner’s commitment to offer to license them on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. First, MEO clarifies that an SEP holder’s differential offers to its licensees are discriminatory within the meaning of Article 102(c) TFEU only when that differential treatment is so substantial as to be capable of distorting competition in the market in which the licensees compete. Thus, after MEO, scrutiny of an SEP holder’s licensing practices under Article 102(c) TFEU turns on the potential effects of the differential treatment. Second, to the extent that the prohibition against discrimination in the FRAND contract is equivalent to the prohibition against discrimination contained in Article 102(c) TFEU, MEO will require an effects-based analysis in cases alleging a breach of the FRAND contract. In those cases, MEO provides guidance for scrutinizing an SEP holder’s discharge of its duties under the FRAND contract, not only in the European Union, but also in foreign jurisdictions where a court must construe and enforce the nondiscrimination requirement of an SEP holder’s FRAND contract.

The Challenge of Digital Markets: First, Let Us Not Forget the Lessons Learnt Over the Years

Pablo Ibáñez Colomo and Gianni De Stefano explore The Challenge of Digital Markets: First, Let Us Not Forget the Lessons Learnt Over the Years.

ABSTRACT: Pleas for the reinvention of EU competition law in the digital age have become popular – so much so that they feature in the generalist press (and the pages of this journal). It is regularly claimed that efficiency and/or consumer welfare are poor guides to address the emerging challenges for the discipline. A whole new approach to competition law (labelled ‘New Brandeis’) defines its identity around this key tenet.

Such claims are also made in relation to specific practices or markets. The rise in the use of algorithms, some commentators argue, is a new threat that requires the refinement of existing doctrines. Similar arguments have been advanced in relation to the prominence of online platforms, which are deemed too mighty to leave legal principles untouched.

There is no reason to exclude digital markets from the reach of EU competition law. What is more, some of the economic dynamics of online markets may, in some circumstances, justify vigorous intervention. This said, it is far from clear whether there is something truly unique about the digital world that warrants a fundamental rethink of the law as it stands.

This editorial suggests that the main risk for EU competition law, at this juncture, is not so much its alleged failure to adapt to new circumstances, but its tendency to forget the lessons learnt over the years.

Economists (and Economics) in Tech Companies

Susan Athey, Stanford Graduate School of Business and Michael Luca, Harvard Business School discuss Economists (and Economics) in Tech Companies. Worth reading!

ABSTRACT: As technology platforms have created new markets and new ways of acquiring information, economists have come to play an increasingly central role in tech companies – tackling problems such as platform design, strategy, pricing, and policy. Over the past five years, hundreds of PhD economists have accepted positions in the technology sector. In this paper, we explore the skills that PhD economists apply in tech companies, the companies that hire them, the types of problems that economists are currently working on, and the areas of academic research that have emerged in relation to these problems.

The Application of European Competition Law in the Financial Services Sector

Fabio Falconi and Lars Suhr describe The Application of European Competition Law in the Financial Services Sector.

ABSTRACT:  From May 2016 to December 2017 there were important developments in the application of EU and UK competition laws in the financial services sector in banking, payment systems, insurance, and capital markets. At UK level, this survey provides an overview of the retail banking investigation, merger decisions a and private damages actions. At EU level, this survey covers the review of the Insurance Block Exemption Regulation, the General Court’s Icap judgment, merger decisions, and state aid decisions.

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Remarks at the American Bar Association Antitrust Section Fall Forum Washington, DC ~ Thursday, November 15, 2018

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Remarks at the American Bar Association, Antitrust Section Fall Forum, Washington, DC ~ Thursday, November 15, 2018. See here.

 

Antitrust Chronicle – Antitrust Due Process Issue

Due process is a very important issue (pre-order my forthcoming book with Oxford University Press here).

The current CPI issue is devoted to this topic.

 

 Procedural Fairness: Convergence in Process

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Paul O’Brien –  Competition agency process can be just as important as substance when it comes to effective enforcement.…

Advances in International Due Process Considerations: Proper Compliance Mechanisms Could Propel Convergence

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Jana I. Seidl & James F. Rill –  Convergence in practice on due process principles is critical to the…

Due Process and Production of Documents Stored Abroad: A Review of Antitrust Discovery Tools After Microsoft Ireland and the Cloud Act

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Valeria Losco & Terry Calvani –  This article discusses one specific issue raised by new technologies in antitrust investigations:…

What’s the Appeal? How the General Court and Competition Appeal Tribunal are Shaping the EU and UK Antitrust Regimes

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Paul Gilbert –  This article considers why European Commission antitrust decisions seem less vulnerable to appeal on substance than…

Due Process and Antitrust in Japan: Enforcers’ Perspective

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Hideo Nakajima –  Since I worked at the Japan Fair Trade Commission as Secretary General prior to joining the…

Procedural Fairness and Transparency in Competition Proceedings

By CPI on November 14, 2018   Antitrust Chronicle, Antitrust Chronicle 2018, Fall 2018, Volume 1, Number 2  

By Antonio Capobianco & Gabriella Erdei –  Procedural fairness includes rights of individuals and legal persons to “due process.” It…

Digital protectionism? Antitrust, data protection, and the EU/US transatlantic rift

Filippo Maria Lancieri asks Digital protectionism? Antitrust, data protection, and the EU/US transatlantic rift.

ABSTRACT: EU authorities increasingly take antitrust and data protection enforcement action against US internet companies. While many believe in digital protectionism, this article looks at the foundations of data protection and antitrust policies across the Atlantic to propose an alternative explanation based on the distinct views over how online markets work and should be regulated. Europeans associate data protection with inalienable rights, Americans treat data as an asset. Europeans use competition policy to advance personal freedom, US antitrust policy focuses on economic efficiency. These singular EU traits encourage the regulation of major internet companies. While the European mistrust of data amassing by private parties supplies political motivation to rein in on digital giants, its competition law framework provides a toolkit capable of overcoming challenges commonly present whenever regulators take antitrust enforcement action against Big Data firms. The US does not share either. This indicates that the EU/US divide over internet regulation will grow—and transatlantic tensions perilously increase. The article concludes by arguing for an adjusted role for economic reasoning in antitrust enforcement as a way to bridge differences.

 

Toward a Coherent Policy on Cartel Damages

Jens-Uwe Franck, University of Mannheim - Department of Law and Martin Peitz, University of Mannheim - Department of Economics write Toward a Coherent Policy on Cartel Damages.

ABSTRACT: The focus of cartel damages law is on the recovery of the cartel overcharge. Parties other than purchasers are often neglected, not only as a matter of judicial practice, but also due to legal restrictions. We argue that a narrow concept of standing—which excludes parties that supply either the cartel or the firms that purchase from the cartel with complementary product components—falls short of achieving effective antitrust enforcement and corrective justice in the best possible way. We provide a framework with two complementary products and show that under neither competition nor cartelization do the allocation and the distribution of surpluses depend on the market organization in place. Thus, we argue that prima facie producers of complements should be treated alike, regardless of whether they purchase from the cartel or supply the cartel or the cartel’s customers. Moreover, based on various factors that determine the enforcement effect of antitrust damage claims and their role as an instrument to achieve corrective justice, we show that a broad concept of standing is, indeed, the preferable legal solution. While its implementation required a change of the position by the U.S. federal courts, we submit that it would amount to a consistent completion of the legal framework within the EU.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the College of Europe’s Global Competition Law Centre

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the College of Europe’s Global Competition Law Centre, Brussels, Belgium ~ Monday, November 12, 2018. See here.

Antimonopoly Law: Competition Law and Policy in Japan (Second Edition)

Masako Wakui has published Antimonopoly Law: Competition Law and Policy in Japan (Second Edition). Worth reading!

 

 

How Do Hub-and-Spoke Cartels Operate? Lessons from Nine Case Studies

Joseph E. Harrington Jr, University of Pennsylvania asks How Do Hub-and-Spoke Cartels Operate? Lessons from Nine Case Studies.

ABSTRACT: Hub-and-spoke collusion is when firms in a market coordinate their conduct by communicating through an upstream supplier or downstream customer. This study examines nine hub-and-spoke cartels towards understanding how they operate: What is the collusive scheme? How do firms achieve mutual understanding regarding that scheme? What is the role played by the hub? How effective is hub-and-spoke collusion? The paper also discusses legal approaches to hub-and-spoke collusion.

Diversified FRAND Enforcement and TRIPS Integrity

Wenwei Guan, City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK) - Centre for Chinese & Comparative Law offers Diversified FRAND Enforcement and TRIPS Integrity.

ABSTRACT: As an integral part of the WTO trading regime and in line with the international trend of antitrust control, TRIPS harmonized intellectual property protection with competition in mind. However, diverse national FRAND enforcement practices that take either a contractual or an antitrust approach challenge TRIPS integrity. While personal property recognition for SEPs lends constitutional support to the contractual approach to FRAND enforcement, private property's in-built limitation warrants a balance with the antitrust approach for needs from others. A critical examination of the TRIPS conclusion and the analytical structure of TRIPS provisions reveal that TRIPS obligation against anticompetitive practices is imperative. The imbalance of harmonized TRIPS with un-harmonized FRAND practices reflects TRIPS birth defect and challenges TRIPS integrity. To improve balance of rights and obligations in international trade and to ensure innovation and technology dissemination that is conducive to social and economic welfare, the paper calls for a contract–antitrust balanced approach to FRAND enforcement and the resumption of WTO's competition negotiations.

Disruptive Innovation and Implications for Competition Policy

Ian S. Forrester discusses Disruptive Innovation and Implications for Competition Policy.

ABSTRACT: While competition is good for consumers and economies, competition rules alone cannot necessarily produce adequate outcomes for all circumstances. Other norms, particularly regulatory norms, are also often likely to be relevant. The current legal and policy debates about ‘disruptive innovation’ highlight the need for a healthy mixture of competition and regulation. This paper offers a series of reflections arising from the challenges posed by disruptive products, services and business models. These reflections cover matters such as the capacity of legal procedures to keep pace with rapidly changing market environments. Competition advocacy can help regulators decide controversial points. The paper discusses several sectors, such as the car-riding and overnight sleeping sectors, in which different interests must simultaneously be accommodated within the boundaries of national tradition and European Union law. As discussed, some of these matters have now been adjudicated by the EU Courts. The related subjects of the acquisition of data as well as the requirements of privacy and data protection principles are also considered. The paper reflects on the role of network effects and on the difficult choices to be made with regard to the wisdom of relying on competition law or on the nature of innovation itself to deliver appropriate responses to the growth of network-based economic power; and the paper notes but does not suggest a remedy for the problem of delay as inimical to effective judicial review.

Mergers and Marginal Costs: New Evidence on Hospital Buyer Power

Stuart Craig, University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School, Matthew Grennan, University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), and Ashley Swanson, University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School; NBER offer Mergers and Marginal Costs: New Evidence on Hospital Buyer Power.

ABSTRACT: We estimate the effects of horizontal mergers on marginal cost efficiencies – a ubiquitous merger justification – using data containing supply purchase orders from a large sample of US hospitals 2009-2015. The data provide a level of detail that has been difficult to observe previously, and a variety of product categories that allows us to examine economic mechanisms underlying “buyer power.” We find that merger target hospitals save on average $176 thousand (or 1.5 percent) annually, driven by geographically local efficiencies in price negotiations for high-tech “physician preference items.” We find only mixed evidence on savings by acquirers.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the LeadershIP EU 2018 Annual Conference in Brussels

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at the LeadershIP EU 2018 Annual Conference in Brussels - Brussels, Belgium ~ Tuesday, November 13, 2018. See here.