Podcasts about antitrust analysis

On 3/31, oral argument in Alston will occur in the Supreme Court... the first college sports case to reach the highest court in 40 years. We give you everything you need to know! *** The ROADMAP: 1) 1:15 — Deshaun Watson now with 14 civil cases against him; His lawyer, Rusty Hardin, plays the “blackmail” card in his first public statement; Victims' Lawyer Tony Buzbee called a liar by the Houston Police Department / tries to get it to a grand jury; we cover it all.  2) 11:36 — Background of Gregg Clifton & Warren Zola 3) 16:25 — Interview Begins: The Supreme Court taking the NCAA-v-Alston case and why it's so important to the future of college sports 4) 25:35 — Antitrust Analysis. NIL Benefits/Potential 5) 34:50 — How a SCOTUS ruling will impact state NIL statutes like Florida’s that goes into effect July 2021 6) 45:06 — NIL Full Scale: Stare Decisis and Forum Shopping in California 7) 51:45 — Possible Outcomes of SCOTUS Ruling on Alston & Parting Thoughts 8) 57:09 — Enter the Solicitor General / How to Follow Oral Arguments on 3/31 *** Have a question or something you want us to cover next episode? Drop us a DM on Instagram or Twitter:  Dan Wallach (@WallachLegal) Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) The Show (@ConDetrimental)

On 3/31, oral argument in Alston will occur in the Supreme Court... the first college sports case to reach the highest court in 40 years. We give you everything you need to know! *** The ROADMAP: 1) 1:15 — Deshaun Watson now with 14 civil cases against him; His lawyer, Rusty Hardin, plays the “blackmail” card in his first public statement; Victims' Lawyer Tony Buzbee called a liar by the Houston Police Department / tries to get it to a grand jury; we cover it all.  2) 11:36 — Background of Gregg Clifton & Warren Zola 3) 16:25 — Interview Begins: The Supreme Court taking the NCAA-v-Alston case and why it's so important to the future of college sports 4) 25:35 — Antitrust Analysis. NIL Benefits/Potential 5) 34:50 — How a SCOTUS ruling will impact state NIL statutes like Florida's that goes into effect July 2021 6) 45:06 — NIL Full Scale: Stare Decisis and Forum Shopping in California 7) 51:45 — Possible Outcomes of SCOTUS Ruling on Alston & Parting Thoughts 8) 57:09 — Enter the Solicitor General / How to Follow Oral Arguments on 3/31 *** Have a question or something you want us to cover next episode? Drop us a DM on Instagram or Twitter:  Dan Wallach (@WallachLegal) Dan Lust (@SportsLawLust) The Show (@ConDetrimental)

Join Jeffrey Leitzinger as he discusses statistical significance in antitrust litigation. His podcast is based off the article- Statistical Significance and Statistical Error in Antitrust Analysis co-written with Phillip Johnson and Edward Leamer. The article was selected as the 2018 co-winner of the annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award.

Technological transformations are raising a host of legal and economic issues that are keeping competition law academics very busy! But are there risks to academic independence in the era of big tech? And are they any different to the experience with big oil, big tobacco, big pharma? Recently there has been publicity surrounding the extent to which large tech companies are funding academic research that supports their policy and legal objectives.  Some are concerned that this threatens the integrity and value of the academic enterprise, particularly when there is non-disclosure of funding or potential conflicts of interest. Others are more accommodating, conscious of the impact of cut backs in government funding for research and keen to see greater engagement between universities and private enterprise. In this episode of Competition Lore, we hear from one of the antitrust scholars in the thick of the debate.  Professor Daniel Sokol is from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and is also an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a client of which is Google. Danny shares his thoughts on being implicated personally in the campaign against so-called “Google Academics” and we talk about what it means to be a modern day scholar with a range of roles inside and outside of academia. Here is a sample of Danny’s recent work in relation to antitrust issues and big tech: The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech, 2017 Understanding Online Markets and Antitrust Analysis, 2017 (with Jingyuan Mua) Responding to Antitrust and Information Technology, 2017 Does Antitrust Have a Role to Play in Regulating Big Data?, 2016 (with Roisin Comerford) The Broader Implications of Merger Remedies in High Technology Markets, 2014 The Google Transparency Project report referred in the episode can be found here. Featuring regular cut-through interviews with leading thinkers, movers and shakers, Competition Lore is a podcast series that engages us all in a debate about the transformative potential and risks of digitalised competition. Join Caron Beaton-Wells, Professor in Competition Law at the University of Melbourne, to tackle what it means to participate as a competitor, consumer or citizen in a digital economy and society. Competition Lore is produced by Written & Recorded.

The argument over Big Data is split. Some argue Big Data makes a small number of platform companies extremely powerful.  These companies have so much data and such resources that they can damage competition, erode our privacy and maybe even distort our democracy. But not everyone shares this view. Others say the data giants are so gigantic because they serve us so well.  We value what they offer and most of us don’t mind paying for it with our privacy. The ‘big is bad’ theory is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. Geoffrey Manne is one of the loudest critics.  He argues that Big Tech opponents have failed to identify clear harms to consumer welfare and calls for an evidence-based approach using an error-cost framework.  He also questions the wisdom of trying to shoehorn broader social and political concerns into the narrow economic remit of antitrust law. In this episode of Competition Lore, Geoff explains why we need to be wary of claims about privacy intrusion as anti-competitive, why network effects should be seen as good not bad, and why the argument that large data-sets prevent new entry is overblown.  He doesn’t buy the idea that big business effectively lobbies government to stifle regulation and he muses that the European crackdown on powerful platform companies may be anti-US protectionism at work. For him, the so far restrained approach of the US authorities is the right one.  The risks of getting it wrong, he argues, are just too great. Here’s a sample of Geoff’s recent writing on these topics: Big Tech’s Big-Time, Big-Scale Problem, 2018 (with Gus Hurwitz) Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case Against Google, 2017 (with Joshua Wright) Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust, 2012 (with Joshua Wright) The Problem of Search Engines as Essential Facilities: An Economic & Legal Assessment, 2011 (with Joshua Wright) The Law and Economics of Data and Privacy in Antitrust Analysis, 2014 (with Ben Sperry) The Problems and Perils of Bootstrapping Privacy and Data into an Antitrust Framework, 2015 (with Ben Sperry) A Critical Assessment of the Latest Charge of Google's Anticompetitive Bias from Yelp and Tim Wu, 2016 (with Ben Sperry and Kristian Stout) Truth on the Market blogs, https://truthonthemarket.com/author/geoffmanne/ And here’s that quirky song from Tower of Power – ‘What is hip’ Featuring regular cut-through interviews with leading thinkers, movers and shakers, Competition Lore is a podcast series that engages us all in a debate about the transformative potential and risks of digitalised competition. Join Caron Beaton-Wells, Professor in Competition Law at the University of Melbourne, to tackle what it means to participate as a competitor, consumer or citizen in a digital economy and society. Competition Lore is produced by Written & Recorded.

Many of us use the term "platform" on a daily basis to describe businesses that we connect with online. But when and how does a business act as a platform? And what difference does this make to platform users, whether as consumers or other businesses that sell or advertise products and services on it? Professor Dick Schmalensee has been studying platforms since at least the 1980s. He says the simplest definition of a platform is a business that brings different sides together. It's an old model but one supercharged by the tech-revolution, and it's getting attention from many authorities around the world. The first challenge though is to understand just what they are dealing with. In this episode of Competition Lore, Professor Schmalensee defines the platform business model and explains how their network effects work, making them attractive to users but also potentially challenging for competition law enforcement. Here is just a sample of Dick Schmalensee’s recent work relevant to this episode: Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms, Harvard Business Review Press, 2016 (with David Evans) Network Effects: March to the Evidence, not to the Slogans, 2017 (with David Evans). The Antitrust Analysis of Multisided Businesses, 2015 (with David Evans) Featuring regular cut-through interviews with leading thinkers, movers and shakers, Competition Lore is a podcast series that engages us all in a debate about the transformative potential and risks of digitalised competition. Join Caron Beaton-Wells, Professor in Competition Law at the University of Melbourne, to tackle what it means to participate as a competitor, consumer or citizen in a digital economy and society. Competition Lore is produced by Written & Recorded.