This issue we asked some noted economists to opine on hot antitrust topics, presenting viewpoints that considered both theory and practice. The results were both thought-provoking and diversified. Two articles on the recent Apple eBook case consider how the ruling changes MFN agreements. Then we analyze what the backlash against experimental economics realistically means for antitrust practice, explore why recent court rulings have made the difference between framing a vertical practice as predation or exclusive dealing so important, and end up looking at how to correct anticompetitive market distortions. Hope everyone is having a wonderful summer!
-
MFNs, Unnatural Experiments, Vertical Practices, & Anticompetitive Distortions
Competition and the Most Favored Nation Clause
There is no simple antitrust consensus for or against MFNs. Jason J. Wu & John P. Bigelow (Compass Lexecon)
Most Favored Nation Clauses Moving Out of Favor
To keep customers from siphoning off a platform, the best advice is to provide them with a competitive quality product than to use a particular contractual term. Joshua Gans (Univ. of Toronto)
Not So Natural Experiments
Antitrust analysis based on natural experiments should pay heed to the warnings that have come out of this re-evaluation. Gregory K. Leonard (Edgeworth Economics LLC)
Vertical Practices and the Exclusion of Rivals Post Eaton
The vertical structure of an industry plays very different roles in the context of predatory pricing than it does in the context of exclusive dealing. John Asker (Stern School of Business, NYU) & Shannon Seitz (Analysis Group, Inc.)
Eliminating Anticompetitive Market Distortions Through The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
A U.S.-EU trade agreement that truly eliminated these anticompetitive distortions would generate trillions of dollars of new wealth in the global economy. Shanker A. Singham (Squire Sanders & Roundtable on Trade and Competition)
