Search

The article examines the China's competition laws, regulate the data and data practices of businesses operating in the digital economy. It analysis the various dynamics including political economy, data regulatory environment, legal framework, its influence on influence and its relationship with China's competition laws.

The article focuses on interrelationship between trade policy and competition enforcement. It mentions that competition law enforcement concentrates on the elimination of private incentives to restrain competition through anticompetitive unilateral conduct, market cartelization, and merger control, while international trade policy focuses mostly on the elimination of regulatory restraints and governmental decisions to regulate international trade flows.

The article surveys the interplay of Chinese competition policy and trade investment policy and draws a similar conclusion on the importance of institutional design. It mentions actions against foreign parties advance China's trade, industrial policy, diplomatic, or defense goals rather than consumer welfare and economic efficiency, existing bilateral and multilateral trade agreements offer only limited recourse.

The article focuses on how antitrust and trade policy relate, it ignores myriad sources of government displacement of market competition to focus exclusively on the influence of competition law on international trade. It mentions about factors give rise to significant tensions between market competition and the global antitrust law environment on the one side and the objective of enhancing trade on the other such as excessively strict substantive antitrust prohibitions.

The article focuses on interrelationship between trade policy and competition enforcement. It mentions that through trade agreements, trading partners seek to ensure minimal domestic competition governance; through cooperation, training, and convergence, they seek to bring coherence to competition enforcement and, thus, to spur competition not just domestically but internationally.

The article examines how narrowing of product market has altered substantive antitrust rules in the U.S. Topics include likely causes for the narrowing of product markets such as demand-side substitution improved, and de-emphasize supply-side substitution; traditional emphasis upon mergers involving "overlapping" horizontal competitors; and the U.S. Supreme Court case Ohio v. American Express Co.

The article focuses on proposal for pursuing antitrust challenges to cross-market mergers in health care systems. It mentions antitrust law to be a tool to address the inimical effects of increased health care provider concentration and retrospective challenge to a consummated cross-market merger under antitrust law. It also mentions relevant federal antitrust statute, Section 7 of the Clayton Act provides prospectively to proscribe mergers.

The article assess the potential explanations for the observed price effect of cross-market health care mergers and analyze the potential economic and legal theories under which such mergers might be challenged under the antitrust laws. It mentions evolution of antitrust merger enforcement in the health care industry and summarize the salient competitive dynamics of health care competition. It also mentions effects of cross-market health care mergers and other health care consolidation issues.

The article focuses on the use of cartels through vertical restraints and ways that distributors may facilitate collusion. It mentions collusive arrangement or play upstream firms against one another, consumers benefit, competition policy's laissez-faire attitude toward vertical relationships. It also mentions European Commission documented cartel organizational mechanisms in sufficient detail to reveal the continued existence of these behaviors and arrangements.

The article offers an appraisal of the innovation theory of harm from an economic perspective. It highlights the works of Massimo Motta and Emanuele Tarantino on the conditions under which horizontal mergers affect innovation adversely. It also informs that horizontal mergers do not reduce competition uniformly but rather increase the market power of a subset of the firms.

The article informs on practical challenges posed by blockchain technology for antitrust enforcement. Topics include economic perspective on blockchain technology; advantage of cryptography and incentives to replace trust and third-party verification; and the impact of blockchain technology on price setting between competitors.

In this article, the author argues that digital multi-sided platforms test the boundaries of standard competition policy and intuitions. It mentions that to enhance the competitive process in digital markets should be based on open standards and interoperability, data portability, consumer transparency, and algorithmic pricing, and based on consumer welfare.

The article provides a brief overview of the new European Union theory of harm to innovation competition. It mentions economics of significant impediment to effective innovation competition by the way of merger. It also informs on a court case Dow/DuPont which involved a horizontal merger between two large suppliers of crop protection chemicals.

The article discusess the commercial importance of attention markets, and struggles faced by antitrust and consumer protection authorities when they encounter the attention economy. Topics discussed include effects of mergers and controlling anticompetitive behavior; enactment of Clayton Act and Sherman Act for promoting anti-competition; and the views of John Newman on same.

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusess topics within the issue including competition policy, and the application of Sherman Act to competition.

The article focuses on presumption that a merger between two hospitals serving the same market will reduce competition and increase prices and price effects can vary for different insurers even within a single merger. Topics discussed include merger of complementary products can lead to price decreases, insurer may actually be able to negotiate lower prices with the newly merged entity and network can deliver the medical care required by plan enrollees.

The article focuses on Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) lost six successive hospital merger cases and FTC launched a series of prospective hospital merger challenges. It mentions DOJ and FTC won several hospital merger challenges, including United States v. Rockford Memorial Corp. It also mentions DOJ and FTC also held extensive hearings on all aspects of hospital competition.

The article discusses conditional pricing practices and its impact on anti-competitive paradigm. Topics discussed includes use of "musthavedness" throughout the case law, use of the price-cost test to analyze loyalty and bundled discounts, and use of the discount-attribution test to evaluate the competitive effects of loyalty discounts.

The article informs that all-units discounts helps a buyer to receive discount on all units purchased conditional on purchasing a quantity above a given threshold. Topics discussed includes contesting of antitrust treatment of all-units and bundled discounts, creation of an artificial market division by dominant firm's contractual commitments, and competitive effects of all-units or bundled discounts depend on pricing formula.

The article discusses the loyalty discounts can violated antitrust laws and that such discounts may violate laws even the supplier's discounted prices remain above its costs. Topics discussed includes role of the price-cost test play in loyalty discount cases, similarity and dissimilarity between exclusive dealing contracts and loyalty discounts, and indifferent between accepting exclusivity and rejecting exclusivity.

The article analyzes rivals' cost foreclosure paradigm, conditional pricing practices, and the flawed incremental price-cost test, to understand anticompetitive paradigm. Topics discussed includes need of understanding legal framework for analyzing competitive effects under particular fact situations, reduction in prices during the predatory phase of a predatory pricing strategy, and consumers benefit from the lower prices during the predatory phase.

The article evaluates "musthavedness" in conditional pricing decision. It mentions bundled discounts, loyalty discounts, tying, and other conditional pricing programs are not illegal if it does not result in undue foreclosure of competition on the merits, and do not violate the antitrust laws. It also mentions concept of musthavedness found its way into cases addressing loyalty discounts.