DOCSLIB.ORG

Einer ELHAUGE I Professor, Harvard Law School, Cambridge 5:45 Pm CLOSING KEYNOTE SPEECH Cristina CAFFARRA I Vice President, CRA, London/Brussels

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Einer ELHAUGE I Professor, Harvard Law School, Cambridge 5:45 Pm CLOSING KEYNOTE SPEECH Cristina CAFFARRA I Vice President, CRA, London/Brussels 6TH BILL KOVACIC ANTITRUST SALON WHERE IS ANTITRUST POLICY GOING? WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 SPONSORS MEDIA SPONSOR PROGRAM 1:15 pm REGISTRATION 4:45 pm A JUDGE’S EYE VIEW ON ANTITRUST: 1:45 pm WELCOME REMARK AND OPENING MERGERS, CARTELS, REMEDIES... KEYNOTE SPEECH Mark ISRAEL I Senior Managing Director, Compass Lexecon, Washington, DC Bill KOVACIC I Professor, George Washington University Law School, George PAUL I Partner, White & Case, Washington, DC Washington, DC Maureen OHLHAUSEN I Commissioner, US FTC, Washington, DC Michael BAYLSON I Judge, US District Court, Eastern District 2:30 pm «POPULIST» ANTITRUST: of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia A DEVIANT MUTATION OR Moderator: Douglas GINSBURG I Judge, US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia AN OVERDUE CORRECTION? Einer ELHAUGE I Professor, Harvard Law School, Cambridge 5:45 pm CLOSING KEYNOTE SPEECH Cristina CAFFARRA I Vice President, CRA, London/Brussels Bill KOVACIC I Professor, George Washington Law, Washington, DC Rebecca Kelly SLAUGHTER I Commissioner, US FTC, Washington, DC Alex OKULIAR I Partner, Orrick, Washington, DC Barry LYNN I Executive Director, Open Markets Institute, Washington, DC Moderator: John BRIGGS I Partner, Axinn, Washington, DC 3:30 pm COFFEE BREAK 3:45 pm SHOULD THE NEW TITANS BE TAMED? LESSONS FROM THE US, EU, AND CHINA Ian CONNER I Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, US FTC, Washington, DC Gail LEVINE I Head of US Regulatory Affairs, Uber, Washington, DC Peter DAVIS I Senior Vice President, Cornerstone Research, London Alvaro RAMOS I Senior Director - Head of Global Antitrust, Qualcomm, San Diego Moderator: Christopher YOO I Professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia 1 - WHERE IS ANTITRUST POLICY GOING? - WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 CONTENTS FOREWORD he 6th edition of the conference in antitrust litigation from the perspective of SYNTHESIS 03 organized by Concurrences judges adjudicating those cases. Overall, VIDEOS 11 Review and The George the conference provided numerous insights Washington University Law on ways antitrust might change in the ATTENDEES 12 School was attended by 116 people times ahead, as well as on ways where PRESS REPORTS 13 on September 24, 2018. Attendees this change might have challenges. encompassed enforcers, academics, We would like to thank our sponsors - Axinn, INTERVIEW 15 economists and attorneys who engaged Charles River Associates, Compass Lexecon, in a lively debate about where antitrust TESTIMONIALS 17 Cornerstone Research, Orrick, Qualcomm, policy is headed with main issues including and White & Case - who helped make this “populist” antitrust, increased concentra- event such a success from both scholarship tions in many US industries, technological and networking perspectives. titans increasing their market power, and antitrust enforcement continuing to show We hope to see you for the 2019 confe- important differences between the US and rence. Meanwhile, we welcome you to other jurisdictions, most notably the EU. dive into some of the key features of the A special panel covered important issues 2018 conference. Bill Kovacic Nicolas Charbit Director Chief Editor GWU Competition Law Center Concurrences Review WHERE IS ANTITRUST POLICY GOING? - WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 - 2 OPENING KEYNOTE SPEECH WILLIAM KOVACIC William Kovacic opened his remarks by pointing ding: hiring illegal aliens, evading taxes, and rights to the prospect of treble damages – so out that universities, like George Washington placing environmentalists on boards of repeat they proposed solutions – like tougher screens University, provide the natural place to foster polluters. This set of ideas sent a tremor through for damage claims, and more demanding discussion and new ideas in antitrust. Over the the entire field. liability standards – that would make antitrust last 40 years, the two predominant schools of friendlier towards large companies. They Kovacic then explained that unlike public thought have been the Chicago school, and the essentially formed a coalition to change anti- enforcement, the leading academic schools Harvard school, both featuring a strong focus trust enforcement. Bork took the center and on consumer welfare, and adoption of policies of thought, Chicago, and Harvard, went the center-right. Areeda took the center and center- that favor less scrutiny of dominant firms. As a opposite direction. Robert Bork of the Chicago left. With any major political change, they could result, the modern antitrust world became a lot School penned manuscripts which propose shift antitrust enforcement towards this new more favorable to dominant firms than it used leaving egalitarianism and focusing on consumer ideological direction. to be. This has inspired changing the framework welfare. He wanted no rule at all for predatory In the end, Kovacic concludes, that’s exactly of the debate in the other direction. pricing (because it had too complicated analysis, and questionable standards and conclusions). what happened. The 1970s ended with a Mr. Kovacic put the current question of where His view of public enforcement was dismal; massive Congressional backlash, and multiple antitrust policy is going into the historical context he thought public agencies increased their funding lapses to FTC. On top of that, politicians of the last 40 years, using the example of influence without increasing public benefit, started making promises contrary to FTC FTC’s egalitarianism being replaced by Chicago and that they made companies put out fires mission in exchange for votes, e.g. that if they and Harvard’s consumer welfare standard. without a clear direction forward. Similarly, the are elected, they would make sure the FTC does not break up Kellogg, which was a concern Kovacic explained that during his time at the Harvard School thought that competition law at the time. By the end of 1980s, Michael FTC in the 1970s, then Chairman Michael should leave egalitarianism, and focus on Pertschuk’s vision was no longer FTC’s agenda. Pertschuck outlined his competition policy, fundamentally economic orientation. Main And the Chicago and Harvard Schools have which included a strongly articulated egalita- members include Philip Areeda, architect of defined antitrust enforcement ever since. rian enforcement vision. Pertschuck noted the school and author of famous work «Anti- there was a need to redefine what antitrust is trust Law»; Donald Turner, and Carl Kaysen. Kovacic finished by positing that in order to restruc- about, and to develop competition policy in Their influence is undeniable – Supreme Court ture antitrust now, new proposals will need to the “broadest sense”, which meant that no Justice Stephen Breyer, majority author in deal with this strong tradition. The proposals will responsive competition policy can neglect the Trinko, and Twombly cites all three authors in need to take on Areeda and Turner’s “adminis- social and environmental harms produced as the decisions. Areeda thought law should trability” argument if they want to take along those unwelcome byproducts of the marketplace, exhibit «administrability» (his invented word), enforcers shaped by Areeda and Turner’s works. e.g. resource depletion, energy waste, and which was the idea that rules have to be subject They will still need a different approach for those worker alienation. Pertschuck concluded that to effective implementation. He considered shaped by Bork. And finally, they will need to FTC would conduct a large scale investigation the egalitarian goal of «fairness» a vague claim. match commitments with capability. Who will do of the impact of macro concentration on our Together, the Chicago and Harvard Schools it? At what cost? Over which timeline? How will lives, and offered very broad examples of what thought that antitrust enforcement over-deters it end? Only then will the new proposals be able might be unfair methods of competition, inclu- companies – from the national style of property to make antitrust policy go in a new direction. 3 - WHERE IS ANTITRUST POLICY GOING? - WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 PANEL 1 “POPULIST” ANTITRUST: A DEVIANT MUTATION OR AN OVERDUE CORRECTION? John BRIGGS (Partner, Axinn) moderated It was a call-in show. On the radio show, the a movie theater and a small pharmacy might the first panel. He started by pointing out how AAG and BRIGGS were asked about the pros not look like a classic antitrust concern, but it seems reasonably clear that we could be at and cons of the Department of Justice’s then- the callers thought that it was, and today such an inflection point in antitrust. For the past few pending case against Microsoft relating to matters are again being brought to the fore decades, the field has been increasingly tech- browsers and Microsoft’s decision to integrate as one object of the bounty of antitrust laws. nocratic, the consumer welfare standard has its own browser into its operating system. They BRIGGS noted this is where the panel starts been seen as “the gold standard,” and even did so. The phone lines were dead. They the discussion, and what a better person to though antitrust has deep roots in concerns discussed the case further. No calls. Briggs start it, than the man most active in this direc- about concentration, monopoly and monop- was then asked to comment on some local tion, Barry LYNN. sony, concentration in many industries, and transactional matter of possible antitrust interest. apparent monopoly and monopsony, have He mentioned the CVS acquisition of the largest Barry LYNN (Executive Director, Open Markets been increasing. Today, there are many voices drug store chain in Washington, which brought Institute) opened by establishing that his presence asking for antitrust to address topics such as about great change to his neighborhood. CVS on the panel is a testament to the antitrust monopsony in labor markets, increased concen- purchased the building that housed the MacAr- community’s dedication to open debate, as tration and market power, individual and regional thur Theatre, closed to the theater, and turned he considers himself the populist on the panel. wealth inequality and other economic condi- it into a large CVS drug store.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
    [Show full text]
  • Bar Unveils Podcasts Bush to Be Judged on Iraq War
    ® April 2006 The Monthly Newspaper of the Philadelphia Bar Association Vol. 35, No. 4 Liasson: Bar Unveils Podcasts Bush to Be Judged on Iraq War by Jeff Lyons President Bush’s legacy will be deter- mined by the outcome of the war in Iraq, National Public Radio political cor- respondent Mara Liasson told members of the Association at the March 23 Quar- terly Meeting and Luncheon. The Association also honored Immed- iate-Past Chancellor Andrew A. Chirls at the event. Chancellor Alan M. Feldman lauded Chirls for his accomplishments during 2005, including his outreach to immigrant communities and his com- mitment to judicial independence. Feldman presented Chirls with a gold box, an exact replica of the one present- ed to Andrew Hamilton for his defense of John Peter Zenger in 1735. The box is presented annually to the immediate- past Chancellor and is in-scribed with the message “acquired not by money, but by character.” “In 2005, we tried to narrow the gaps Photo illustration by Kate Maxwell between our immigrant communities in Association Programs Available for Download Philadelphia and the legal system. We wanted justice to speak all languages,” by Mark A. Tarasiewicz er Programs, Chancellor’s Column, above categories and automatically continued on page 13 Member Benefits, Legislative Update, download the latest podcasts to your Members can now take the Phila- Hot Interviews with Very Cool People, MP3 player, such as an Apple iPod. delphia Bar Association “on the go” Career Corner and Law Practice You can now download the Bar In This Issue ... with the official April 1 launch of the Management.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 ALUMNI AWARDS BIOGRAPHIES Joanna
    2016 ALUMNI AWARDS BIOGRAPHIES Joanna Visser Adjoian C’04, L’10 (Young Alumni Award) Joanna Visser Adjoian, Esq. is co-founder and Co-Director of the Youth Sentencing & Reentry Project (YSRP). YSRP uses direct service and policy advocacy to transform the experiences of children prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system, and to ensure fair and thoughtful resentencing and reentry for individuals who were sentenced to life without parole as children (“juvenile lifers”). Prior to co-founding YSRP, Joanna served as Associate Director and Staff Attorney of the Toll Public Interest Center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Penn Law Postgraduate Fellow at Juvenile Law Center, federal law clerk for Judge Joel Schneider in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey, and family law paralegal at Philadelphia Legal Assistance. At Juvenile Law Center, Joanna coordinated the Pennsylvania Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, and co-authored Amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts on juvenile life without parole sentences. At the Toll Center, she oversaw the Center’s 26 student pro bono projects, offered guidance to more than 100 student leaders and directly supervised students in new and existing pro bono initiatives. Joanna is a 2014 Echoing Green Fellow, 2016 Claneil Emerging Leader Fellow, and a finalist for a 2016 Excellence in Advocacy Award from the Professional Women in Advocacy Conference. She chairs the Philadelphia Bar Association Public Interest Section's Legal Rights of Children Committee, and serves as a member of the Toll Public Interest Center Advisory Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteers Work to Fight Foreclosures ■ by Jeff Lyons
    Philadelphia ® The Monthly Newspaper of the Philadelphia Bar Association Vol. 37, No. 7 July 2008 Women in the Profession Summit Volunteers Work to Fight Foreclosures ■ By Jeff Lyons P’ to help low-income home- owners facing mortgage foreclosures has received national attention. “I was at a big seminar in Dallas about the subprime mortgage crisis and one of the panelists held up a copy s n of !e Wall Street Journal o y L f f that had an article talking e J y b about our efforts here in o t o Judge C. Darnell Jones II h Philadelphia,” Philadelphia P U.S. District Court Judge Petrese B. Tucker (from left) discusses communication across the gender Court of Common Pleas gap as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Dolores K. Sloviter and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge President Judge C. Darnell Jones II recalled. Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson look on at the First Women in the Profession Summit on June 18. The “/ey wanted me to talk about it. I told them the pro opening panel also included U.S. District Court Senior Judge Norma L. Shapiro, Judge Diane M. Welsh, bono community was the backbone in the effort. And Court of Common Pleas Judge Marlene F. Lachman and moderator Lynn A. Marks. The program includ- ed keynote remarks by Comcast’s Charisse Lillie. For more coverage, see Page 8. they were in awe. /ey couldn’t believe it would hap- continued on page 16 Get Practice Help With LPM Referral In This Issue 2 Chancellor’s Forum ■ By Jeff Lyons Size Firm Committee as well as Technol- to draft an agreement or where to go for ogy, Financial Management, Business a technology issue or any of those types 6 Image Conscious O Management and Marketing are all of things, you contact the Bar Associa- of Bar Association membership is the committees that fall under the umbrella tion and they will put you in touch with 9 Networking Advice Law Practice Management Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon's Surveillance Infrastructure and Revitalizing a Fair Marketplace
    JULY 2021 Eyes Everywhere: Amazon's Surveillance Infrastructure and Revitalizing a Fair Marketplace Daniel A. Hanley 1 1 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 II. Competitor Surveillance ......................................................................... 4 A. Amazon Marketplace ...................................................................... 4 B. Amazon Web Services ...................................................................... 5 C. Fulfillment by Amazon ..................................................................... 6 III. Consumer Surveillance ...................................................................... 7 A. Amazon Marketplace ...................................................................... 7 B. Amazon Alexa .................................................................................. 8 C. Amazon Ring .................................................................................... 9 D. Amazon's Other Consumer Surveillance Ambitions ..................... 10 IV. Harms .............................................................................................. 11 A. Copying Competitor Products ...................................................... 11 B. Self-Preferencing ............................................................................ 13 C. Arbitrary and Exclusionary Rules ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Lina Khan's Appointment As FTC Chair Mean for Your Business?
    Litigation & Arbitration Group Client Alert What Does Lina Khan’s Appointment as FTC Chair Mean for Your Business? June 25, 2021 Contact Fiona Schaeffer Andrew Wellin Eric Hyla Lena K. Bruce Partner Special Counsel Associate Associate +1 212.530.5243 +1 212.530.5432 +1 212.530.5243 +1 212.530.5028 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] On June 15, 2021, within hours of her Senate confirmation as a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner, 32-year-old Lina Khan was appointed by President Biden to serve as the youngest FTC Chair in history. Khan has established herself as a progressive antitrust activist and a leader of the “New Brandeis Movement”1 that advocates for a revival of more aggressive U.S. antitrust policies and enforcement from the earlier part of the 20th century. Khan’s most widely-recognized and influential work, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” published in the Yale Law Journal in 2017 (while she was a Yale law student), argues that the current US antitrust paradigm (heavily influenced by the Chicago School) is too narrowly focused on consumer welfare and “is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy.”2 Because the consumer welfare standard focuses on short-term price and output effects, it is ill-equipped to address the purported harms to competition that big tech platforms raise. In her article, Khan maintains that platform markets, such as Amazon, have evaded antitrust liability because they focus on long-term growth over short-term profits – in short, they can make predatory, below-cost pricing a rational and profitable strategy, and can control the infrastructure on which their rivals depend without raising prices or reducing output in the short-term.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Antitrust History Revisited
    BOOK REVIEW THE END OF ANTITRUST HISTORY REVISITED THE CURSE OF BIGNESS: ANTITRUST IN THE NEW GILDED AGE. By Tim Wu. New York, N.Y.: Columbia Global Reports. 2018. Pp. 154. $14.99. Reviewed by Lina M. Khan∗ INTRODUCTION In April 2007 the Antitrust Modernization Commission reported to Congress that “the state of the U.S. antitrust laws” was “sound.”1 Created by lawmakers to examine whether antitrust laws should be re- vised, the bipartisan Commission concluded that existing statutes were sufficiently flexible to address emerging issues, and that courts, antitrust agencies, and practitioners were now in proper agreement that “con- sumer welfare” was the “unifying goal of antitrust law.”2 A decade later, the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section delivered a similar as- sessment, remarking that “the Nation’s system of competition enforce- ment has been in good hands.”3 These reports represented a high-water mark of agreement within the antitrust community that, despite ongoing debates about specific doctrinal tests or particular standards of proof, antitrust law was, altogether, on the right course. The fact that antitrust had shed its public appeal in favor of an expert-driven enterprise — becoming “less democratic and more technocratic”4 — was generally seen as further evidence of its success.5 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Academic Fellow, Columbia Law School; Counsel, U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. This Review reflects my per- sonal views and not those of the Committee or any of its members. For insightful comments and conversations, I am grateful to Eleanor Fox, David Grewal, Lev Menand, John Newman, and Mar- shall Steinbaum.
    [Show full text]
  • Em Plataformas Digitais
    A Coleção Acadêmica Livre publica obras de livre acesso em formato digital. Nossos livros abordam o universo jurídico e temas transversais por meio de diferentes enfoques. Podem ser copiados, compartilhados, citados e divulgados livremente para fins não comerciais. A coleção é uma iniciativa da Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV DIREITO SP). Esta obra foi avaliada e aprovada pelos membros do Conselho Editorial da coleção. Conselho Editorial Flavia Portella Püschel (FGV DIREITO SP) Gustavo Ferreira Santos (UFPE) Marcos Severino Nobre (Unicamp) Marcus Faro de Castro (UnB) Violeta Refkalefsky Loureiro (UFPA) DEFESA DA CONCORRÊNCIA EM PLATAFORMAS DIGITAIS Organização Caio Mário da Silva Pereira Neto Autores Antonio Bloch Belizario Bruno Bastos Becker Bruno Polonio Renzetti Caio Mário da Silva Pereira Neto Carolina Destailleur G. B. Bueno Daniel Favoretto Rocha Danilo Alves de Sousa Esther Collet Janny Teixeira Biselli Gabriel de Carvalho Fernandes João Felipe Achcar de Azambuja Marcela Abras Lorenzetti Marcela Mattiuzzo Marina Chakmati Raíssa Leite de Freitas Paixão Os livros da Coleção Acadêmica Livre podem ser copiados e compartilhados por meios eletrônicos; podem ser citados em outras obras, aulas, sites, apresentações, blogues, redes sociais etc., desde que mencionadas a fonte e a autoria. Podem ser reproduzidos em meio físico, no todo ou em parte, desde que para fins não comerciais. A Coleção Acadêmica Livre adota a licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional, exceto onde estiver expresso de outro modo. Editora-chefe DEFESA DA CONCORRÊNCIA Catarina Helena Cortada Barbieri Edição EM PLATAFORMAS DIGITAIS Lyvia Felix Preparação de texto Willians Calazans Revisão e editoração Know-How Editorial Organização Projeto gráfico Caio Mário da Silva Pereira Neto Ultravioleta Design Capa Autores Marcelo Guerreiro (Ultravioleta Design) Antonio Bloch Belizario Bruno Bastos Becker Bruno Polonio Renzetti Ficha catalográfica elaborada por: Cristiane de Oliveira CRB SP-008061/O Caio Mário da Silva Pereira Neto Biblioteca Karl A.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON APPELLATE RULES Philadelphia, PA September 27, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA ........................................................................................................................................ 5 TAB 1 Introductions and Opening Business A. Table of Agenda Items .............................................................................. 19 B. Draft Minutes of April 2012 Appellate Rules Meeting .......................... 25 C. Draft Minutes of June 2012 Standing Committee Meeting................... 47 TAB 2 Agenda Item No. 09-AP-B: Letter to Chief Judges Regarding Suggested Amendment to Rule 29(a) (May 29, 2012) ........................................................... 97 TAB 3 Agenda Item No. 10-AP-I: Sealing and Redaction in Appellate Filings A. Reporter’s Memorandum Regarding Agenda Item No. 10-AP-I (Aug. 2, 2012) ............................................................................................. 103 B. Reporter’s Memorandum Regarding Agenda Item No. 10-AP-I (Aug. 9, 2011) ............................................................................................. 109 C. Spreadsheet of Local Circuit Provisions Regarding Sealed Filings (rev. Aug. 2, 2012) ..................................................................................... 139 TAB 4 Agenda Item No. 11-AP-E: Suggestion to Amend Criminal Appeal Deadlines in Rule 4(b) A. Reporter’s Memorandum Regarding Agenda Item No. 11-AP-E (Aug. 29, 2012) ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lina Khan, Obama’S Game of Chicken, WASH
    Makan Delrahim Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 May 30, 2018 Public Comments of the Open Markets Institute Submitted to the Antitrust Division Roundtable Examining the “Consumer Costs of Anticompetitive Regulations” The Open Markets Institute welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Justice Department’s roundtable discussion on “the consumer costs of anticompetitive regulations.” We look forward to continuing to engage with the Antitrust Division on antitrust and competition issues. Markets are shaped through law and regulation. Although public regulations are often depicted as encumbering or interfering with competition, it is a mistake to classify them this way. On the contrary, public regulations are often fundamental to creating constructive competition within open markets. Other public regulations—following legitimate mandates from federal, state, or local authorities—promote non-competition values, such as public health and safety, worker protections, diversity, and local control. In select instances, it may be appropriate for the Antitrust Division to identify those public regulations that serve private interests at the expense of both competition and the public interest. But our view is that the Antitrust Division should focus its efforts and resources on antitrust enforcement, and that devoting resources to critiquing the work of public regulators should generally not be a component of the Division’s work. We believe this for three reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Sent a Letter
    March 9, 2021 Ronald Klain The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Chief of Staff Ron Klain: In light of renewed popular interest in American anti-monopoly policy — particularly antitrust law’s applicability to major internet technology firms like Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple — three as-yet unfilled appointments in the Biden administration have garnered unusually intense public interest: the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, and the two unfilled Commissioner positions at the Federal Trade Commission. A recent report indicates that legal scholar Lina Khan is slated to receive one of these unfilled Commissioner positions.1 If this is accurate, we highly commend the administration for elevating one of the most important antitrust scholars of our time to this role. As you no doubt know, Khan’s article “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” upended antitrust legal theory in a way few law articles do, promulgating ideas which have now led to a popular wave of anti-monopolist thinking among the general public.2 However, while the replacement of Rohit Chopra with Lina Khan would be welcome, it leaves major unanswered questions around who the Administration will select as chair of the Commission, who will fill the remaining Commission vacancy, and who will serve as Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the Department of Justice. It is precisely Amazon’s monopolistic power which gives us concern. Such a powerful corporation will no doubt expend enormous political and economic capital to limit the power of anti-monopoly forces and their ability to curb its power. Of particular note is Amazon’s direct route into influencing Oval Office strategy and policy conversation, by way of White House Counselor Steve Ricchetti.
    [Show full text]