Category Archives: Antitrust

Andrew Cuomo Sues Intel

cuomo3

Over at the Washington Examiner‘s Opinion Zone, Wayne Crews and I explain why New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit against Intel is a mistake.

Calling Intel’s business practices “bribery” and “coercion” is little more than argument by assertion. Rebates and exclusivity deals are normal competitive behavior. Not only is Intel facing increasing competition in its home turf, that small segment is hardly the extent of the relevant competitive market. Intel faces an uncertain future as consumer tastes shift to smaller products powered by non-Intel chips. Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit does not stand up to scrutiny. It deserves to be dropped.

Antitrust policies thwart the competitive process whenever and wherever they are applied.

Is Cognitive Dissonance an Insured Condition?

brain-scan_530
Rep. Diana DeGette is, without any apparent cognitive dissonance or trace of irony, proposing:

1) Require, by law, that people buy health insurance.

2) Remove health insurers’ antitrust exemption. But only after legally requiring everyone to buy their product.

You figure it out. Insurers are set to receive one of the largest coroporate welfare grants in history. No wonder so many firms are salivating over this year’s health care legislation. But they may pay an antitrust price for their legally mandated windfall.

Perhaps this is a warped Washington version of what one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

Intel’s Human Rights

While I was away on vacation, the Detroit News ran an article by Hans Bader and me about Intel’s claim that the EU’s $1.45 billion fine against them violates its human rights.

Do Corporations Have Human Rights?

Intel’s defense in its EU antitrust case has taken the surprising line that the company’s human rights were violated. Over at Real Clear Markets, CEI colleague Hans Bader and I take a closer look. We conclude that Intel actually has a pretty good argument.

Corporations have human rights because doing so greatly reduces transaction costs: “suppose your company wants to buy some computer chips from Intel. You could have each shareholder sign the sales contract – good luck finding them all – or you could treat Intel as a person with the right to sign a contract, and the obligation to honor it. To deal with one person or millions? That is why corporations have legal standing as individuals.”

In short: no corporate rights, no modern economy. No exaggeration. There is a reason why legal conventions emerge as they do, even if they appear strange at first glance.

Iain Murray was kind enough to point out to me that the idea of corporate human rights has very deep roots. The 18th-century legal scholar William Blackstone, in his revered analysis of the English common law, wrote that corporations have the right “[T]o sue or be sued,, implead or be impleaded, grant or receive, by its corporate name, and do all other acts as persons may.”*

*William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 1: Of the Rights of Persons, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [1765]), p. 463.

Regulation of the Day 48: Barbers in Nevada

Want to be a barber in Nevada? You’ll need to get a license first. One of the requirements is a chest X-ray, of all things. And a blood test.

More onerous is the 18-month apprenticeship under a licensed barber, which requires its own license – plus another chest X-ray and blood test.

Occupational licensing regulations are rarely in place to benefit consumers. Their primary purpose is often to limit competition by putting up barriers to entry. Why do this? Because keeping the supply of barbers artificially low means that existing barbers can keep their prices artificially high.

Three of the four licensing board members must be licensed barbers. They write the apprenticeship rules and the license examination. They decide who gets in, and who gets left out. They have plenty of excuses built into the rules for excluding potential competitors.

Owing child support payments, for example, is by itself grounds for exclusion. What this has to do with cutting hair is beyond me. And getting a job cutting hair is one way to be able to make those payments. But there it is, encoded in state law. The board can legally keep you from being a barber if you owe child support.

A sure sign of an anti-competitive practice is using the force of law to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace. Where is the antitrust investigation into Nevada’s barber licensing?

Economics 101: Where Do Monopolies Come From?

Bryan Caplan says there are only two ways for a monopoly to form: government protection, or being the best.

“If the firm has a monopoly because the government made competition illegal, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s legalizing competition. If the firm has a monopoly because it’s the best, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s a little freakin’ appreciation.”

Read the whole thing.

Regulation of the Day 38: Carrying Letters

Antitrust laws are intended to prevent anti-competitive practices. And if anything qualifies as an anti-competitive practice, fining and jailing people for competing with you certainly would. Which brings us to this little tidbit from the Code of Federal Regulations:

It is generally unlawful under the Private Express Statutes for any person other than the Postal Service in any manner to send or carry a letter on a post route or in any manner to cause or assist such activity. Violation may result in injunction, fine or imprisonment or both and payment of postage lost as a result of the illegal activity.

I expect the Department of Justice to launch an investigation post-haste.

DOJ to Investigate Microsoft-Yahoo Search Partnership

As expected, The Department of Justice is launching an antitrust investigation into the Microsoft-Yahoo search engine partnership.

As I’ve said before, this is not an antitrust issue.

Inconvenient Evidence Suppressed in EU-Intel Antitrust Case

The antitrust laws currently on the books are so vague, judges and regulators have essentially had to make up their own policies. In other words, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

Look what just happened in Europe. The EU’s ombudsman recently discovered that the EU’s antitrust regulators intentionally suppressed “potentially exculpatory” evidence in their case against Intel.

That case, remember, resulted in a €1,000,000,000 fine against Intel. Unfortunately, the ombudsman’s finding will not affect the case’s outcome. That’s a nice of way of saying the prosecutor lied and got away with it.

One more example of why antitrust regulations result in the rule of men, not the rule of law.

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Antitrust

Over at the Washington Examiner, I make the case for why trustbusters should lay off the Microsoft-Yahoo search engine partnership. My key point:

“If regulations are to be effective, they must be either clear or silent; antitrust statutes are neither. That alone is reason enough to urge trustbusters to back off the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership, and just let the competitors compete. Consumers should pick the winner, not politicians.”