type here...

Lawrence B. Landman

Lawrence B. Landman earned his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley, his MBA from Columbia University, and his Ph.D. from Roskilde University in Denmark. He has written extensively on how the American European, and other antitrust authorities protect competition to innovate. He is the author of "Doing Business in the United States: Legal Opportunities and Pitfalls," which has been translated into Czech and Chinese. He is the Senior Vice President of Lateral Link's Bridgeline Solutions, and Director of its Antitrust Department. He is also of counsel at Ince Legal and a Senior Fellow of the GW Competition & Innovation Lab at The George Washington University.
Antitrust and Competition

The Revised US Merger Guidelines Adopt the Future Markets Model

Lawrence B. Landman
Since 1993 the American enforcers have claimed that they can directly protect firms’ competition to innovate. And the European Commission, which at first acknowledged that it protected competition in Future Markets, markets for products which do not exist yet, later claimed that it too can directly protect firms’ competition to innovate. In their new Revised Merger Guidelines the American enforcers now not only acknowledge that they protect competition in Future Markets, but say that they will do so aggressively. And since the Americans acknowledge that they protect competition in Future Markets the Europeans should do so as well—again.
Antitrust and Competition

The European Commission Finds, not Innovation Spaces, but Future Markets

Lawrence B. Landman
Without saying how, FTC Commissioner Slaughter says competition authorities should do more than just protect competition in pipeline products; they should protect broader competition...
Antitrust and Competition

Illumina/Grail: Using the Future Markets Model To Ask the Right Question

Lawrence B. Landman
Grail and its competitors are developing tests which will save perhaps millions of lives. They will detect many different types of cancer very early—if they ever exist. All these tests need Illumina’s instruments. The FTC, reversing an administrative law judge, said Illumina could not buy Grail. If it did, the FTC said, it would not let Grail’s competitors use its instruments. Illumina has appealed, saying, among other things, that since the tests do not exist there is, for antitrust purposes, currently no market.  Yet while the tests may or may not exist in the future the Fifth Circuit has to decide this case now.
Antitrust and Competition

The Future Markets Model Explains Meta/Within: A Reply to Herb Hovenkamp

Lawrence B. Landman
In response to both Herb Hovenkamp’s February 27 article in ProMarket and, perhaps more importantly, also to Hovenkamp’s highly regarded treatise, Lawrence B. Landman, first, shows that the Future Markets Model explains the court’s decision in Meta/Within. Since Meta was not even trying to make a future product, the court correctly found that Meta would not enter the Future Market. Second, the Future Markets Model is the analytical tool which Hovenkamp says the enforcers lack when they try to protect competition to innovate.

Latest news

View All

The publication of the Stigler Center at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business

ProMarket is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket Policy.