This is unbelievable. @FTC staffers are opposing a request by a group of professors (including me) to file an amicus brief in its administrative challenge to the Illumina/Grail merger.🧵…
The staffers insinuate that we amici have been bought off by the merging parties and that our views should therefore be ignored. As an initial matter, it’s awfully rich for FTC to cry bias in an administrative proceeding in which it acts as both prosecutor and judge. Moreover,
I can assure you that I have never received a penny for expressing a view in this case. Nor, to my knowledge, has any entity with which I am affiliated. I oppose the FTC’s challenge for reasons I stated in this blog post:…
The facts here are simple. The merger offers obvious efficiencies and eliminates double marginalization. The purported harms are utterly speculative, as the market for multi-cancer early detection tests doesn’t even exist. (Indeed, this merger would hasten its existence!) Plus,
The competitive concerns FTC identifies—foreclosure of rivals from a needed platform—are obviated by the parties’ binding commitment to provide platform access at reduced prices for 12 years! No wonder complaint counsel is scared.
But I really wish antitrust interventionists would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being bought off. It’s annoying enough when public interest groups do it. When government enforcers discount opposing viewpoints as biased, it’s downright dangerous. END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Thom Lambert

Thom Lambert Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @profthomlambert

4 Feb
My former colleague @HawleyMO, whom I recruited to Mizzou Law and consider a friend, penned this @firstthingsmag piece. He argues that Robinhood’s restriction on GameStop trading was a Big Tech conspiracy to hold down the little guy. A few thoughts. 1/x…
@HawleyMO is lying. I hate to say that of a friend, but it’s true. He’s saying things he knows are false. As many have explained, Robinhood halted certain trading to deal with a liquidity crisis. He knows there was no conspiracy to protect hedge funds. 2/x…
But that fact doesn’t support @HawleyMO’s campaign to rail against the sort of coastal elites that, like him, went to schools such as Stanford and Yale and now, like him, have amassed power. This campaign, he hopes, will endear him to regular folks. 3/x
Read 16 tweets
7 Dec 19
1/6 - So many bad ideas in @ewarren’s antitrust proposal. Most of the chatter so far has been on the merger prohibitions, but as this article shows, there’s much more. Some thoughts on a couple of provisions:…
2/6 - According to the article, the bill reverses Trinko and saddles dominant firms with a duty to share essential facilities (incl data?) with their rivals. This would impair dynamic efficiency by reducing the incentive to create valuable amenities in the first place.
3/6 - Why build it if you have to let your rivals use it? And why make your own when you can use your rival’s?
Read 6 tweets
18 Jun 19
What do @HalSinger, @geoffmanne, @RichardAEpstein, Keith Hylton, and yours truly have in common? We all believe @FTC blew it in its 1-800 Contacts decision. We joined @WLF to ask the 2nd Cir to vacate FTC’s order.…
In settling trademark disputes, 1-800 and some rivals agreed not to bid on search ads keyed to each other’s trademarks. FTC said this was “inherently suspect” and condemned it under the “quick look” approach. Two problems with that:
First, SCt has required full rule of reason in cases involving more extensive ad restrictions (Cal Dental) and IP settlements threatening greater anticompetitive harm (Actavis). If no QL there, then surely not here. Also, FTC ignored a key procompetitive benefit of restrictions:
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!