17 lina khan除三害

Twice we found the Google cases mildly irritating… 在民主党离开白宫前夕，我们聊了这一届administration留下的关键遗产：一大堆乱七八糟的反垄断。这次讨论绵延四天，补录三次，横跨大选，到最后我们都筋疲力尽，我感到要想把反垄断陈述清楚真的是不可能。一只与资本主义鳄鱼牙齿调情的小鸟；一部末法之法。而我们对于有形无形手的这些精妙意见也实际改变不了任何事到最后只是entertain了我们自己。

(03:51) 大水漫灌Sherman Act

(08:04) Google Play Store案 (Epic v. Google). P.s. But Apple did it too (and worse).

- We trashed market definition, tying, consumer information costs and paternalism. We took a short halftime and grabbed some soda (25:44). Then we trashed the consumer welfare standard and the antithesis of the consumer welfare standard.

(39:13) Google search engine案 (US v. Google). P.s. This time Apple really did it too.

- We trashed the breakup proposal, exclusive dealing, pricing as signal and the outer boundaries of antitrust law.

(52:50) Last thoughts & 彩蛋。We trashed each other. Cliffhanger: did we fall out over this?

Some references:

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Co. (1985) (12:00)

Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, 2010 (14:34)

Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Servs. (1992); Scalia’s dissent (17:33)

US v. Microsoft (D.C. Cir. 2001) (27:08) (41:30) (53:30)

Robert H. Bork, Legislative History and the Policy of the Sherman Act, 1966 (32:18)

Barak Orbach, The Antitrust Consumer Welfare Paradox, 2011 (32:44)

Oliver Williamson, Economies As An Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Tradeoffs, 1968 (32:53)

Lina Khan, Amazon's Antitrust Paradox, 2017 (33:43)

[懒得读以上四篇可以直接读Hovenkamp, Is Antitrust's Consumer Welfare Principle Imperiled?, 2019]

Tim Wu, Tyranny of Convenience, www.nytimes.com (38:05)

Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 1985 (43:30)

这一期观点是真的真的不代表我们老板也真的真的真的不是法律意见。

BGM credit to Suno AI