Reading the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Google Shopping case made me sad. My main objection to the judgment has nothing to do with the merits of the decision, but rather with the form of the written judgment and the continuing failure of the Court to connect with people in the...Read More
Welcome to “Tech Monopoly,” a series where University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Herbert Hovenkamp engages with pressing issues in antitrust policy, with a focus on technology and problems of market dominance. Professor Hovenkamp gives particular attention to identifying markets and situations where antitrust can be beneficial, and the kinds of antitrust remedies that...Read More
Just as we were ready to go on our summer holidays, or even after some of us had already left, the Commission published its draft Guidelines on exclusionary abuses (you can find them here in all official languages). This was a step that was long awaited with some anxiety (not by me – I knew...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Zephyr Teachout (Fordham University). The entire symposium is edited by Thibault Schrepel (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Anouk...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Anca Daniela Chirita (Durham University). The entire symposium is edited by Thibault Schrepel (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Dirk Auer (ICLE & University of Liège) and Lazar Radic (ICLE & IE University). The entire symposium...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Mariateresa Maggiolino (Bocconi). The entire symposium is edited by Thibault Schrepel (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Anouk van der...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Herbert Hovenkamp (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the Wharton School). The entire symposium is edited...Read More
The Network Law Review is pleased to present a symposium entitled “The Future of the Neo-Brandeis Movement”, asking experts the following question: will the neo-Brandeis movement have a lasting impact on antitrust law? This contribution is signed by Jonathan M. Barnett (University of Southern California). The entire symposium is edited by Thibault Schrepel (Vrije Universiteit...Read More
I am writing this contribution from the perspective of a European, more specifically Dutch, perspective as an academic and public antitrust practitioner. My introduction to the neo-Brandeis movement came in what I remember as a 2018 or 2019 conversation with Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute at an Oxford seminar convened by Ariel Ezrachi...Read More
Welcome to the Latin Antitrust Chronicles – a series covering some of the most relevant developments in competition law in the region. Our comprehensive coverage will include decisions by authorities as well as relevant bills, advocacy efforts, and other initiatives pertinent to the debate. Our contributors alternating each quarter include Marcela Mattiuzzo, former Advisor and...Read More
There were a number of decisions from April-May 2024, covering topics such as (1) the use of the SSNIP test in monopolization (as opposed to merger) cases, which raises the issue of the proper benchmark for the competitive price; (2) the proper methodologies for damages models; and (3) the Noerr-Pennington doctrine’s application to litigation incentive...Read More
This short article serves as an introduction to the working paper by Thibault Schrepel and Jason Pott entitled “Measuring the Openness of AI Foundation Models: Competition and Policy Implications” *** Antitrust agencies are showing a strong interest in AI foundation models and Generative AI (“GenAI”) applications. They want to ensure that the AI ecosystem remains...Read More
Welcome to Crane’s Cartel, a trimonthly series where University of Michigan law professor Daniel Crane engages in hard-core mind-fixing. **** I was recently proofing edits to a law review article when I noticed that the editors had made a global change to decapitalize “school” in “Chicago School.” I asked to change it back to Chicago...Read More
Dear readers, the Network Law Review is delighted to present you with this month’s guest article by Herbert Hovenkamp, James B. Dinan University Professor at UPenn Carey Law School and the Wharton School. *** Aside from naked restraints such as price-fixing, antitrust offenses require proof of the defendant’s market power, or ability to profit by raising price...Read More
