My newest empirical study, with Rory Van Loo and Lane Miles, finds that more than 10% of companies in the US share board members with a direct competitor, a per se violation of the antitrust laws papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... - ThreadSky

marklemley.bsky.social • 2 days ago

My newest empirical study, with Rory Van Loo and Lane Miles, finds that more than 10% of companies in the US share board members with a direct competitor, a per se violation of the antitrust laws

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5300760

Comments

bwaber.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'm acting astonished

ffa1984.bsky.social•19 hours ago

In a world of conglomerates, how can any individual serve on more than one board without violating their fiduciary responsibilities?

fsquared.bsky.social•23 hours ago

Will have to read it Mark, but the headline is wildly misleading. If one is within the Section 8 safe harbors, having shared board members is "not" a per se violation (fed, anyway).

I get that "a per se violation" reads as far more punchy than "may be" but as presented that's some aggressive spin.

marklemley.bsky.social•23 hours ago

Yeah, maybe worth reading it before criticizing it? We do in fact consider the safe harbors (though also discuss whether they make sense in all industries)

fsquared.bsky.social•23 hours ago

I was criticizing the headline, not the article - and whatever the article says (and FWIW I'm impressed and deeply grateful for the research) it's not a hard call that the criticism of the headline is fair - it outruns the facts here. The actual findings are impressive, so no need for that . . .

laurenbrns.bsky.social•2 days ago

Wouldn't it be great if the administration would enforce such law.

marklemley.bsky.social•2 days ago

Antitrust may be the one area where Trump mostly continues Biden's policies

laurenbrns.bsky.social•2 days ago

That's a surprise, but I'm happy to hear it.

That's assumes without much reason that they would fairly apply it and not use it as an opportunity to sell waivers.

marklemley.bsky.social•1 day ago

Fair point

antitrustguy.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'm skeptical of the accuracy of the definition of competitor. It seems unlikely that 30% of pharma and biotech companies have interlocks in markets that are properly defined (i.e not "pharmaceuticals"). With 2500 companies in the sample, most are going to have only a handful of products.

marklemley.bsky.social•1 day ago

Maybe take a look at the paper. These are the companies they identify as direct competitors; it is NOT just industry or SIC code. Also this prior paper, specific to biotech, where we use FDA filings to hone in on direct competition specifically: https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/11/1/lsae005/7643376?login=false

antitrustguy.bsky.social•1 day ago

I looked at n.101 of the paper, which says competitors are identified with a “proprietary methodology” by Pitchbook.

antitrustguy.bsky.social•1 day ago

And I looked at your other paper. “Oncology” etc. is not an antitrust market. And looking at clinical trials means looking at products generally without revenue and thus not subject to Section 8 anyway. Even with revenue the 2% or 4% de minimis thresholds likely apply.

marklemley.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yes, I'm aware; we separate revenue and non-revenue companies. And it's why we don't rely just on "oncology." If your point is merely that each of these cases needs to be investigated on its own, I agree. Antitrust markets are specific. But self- and expert-identified competition is surely relevant.

riana.bsky.social•1 day ago

There are still per se violations left that SCOTUS hasn't converted to rule of reason?!

yokoatx.bsky.social•1 day ago

Wow that is seriously crazy!

tafphy.bsky.social•18 hours ago

It is so the (evil bane of capitalism) Venture Capitalists can wheel patent rights internationally by licensing2their Corporations or their subsidiary(s), & is either the same or sim falls under said patent protection, & said Corps decide when & where (stage of supply chain) gets the bulk of profit

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply