May I use a few pixels for a pet peeve? It’s time for the Antitrust Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice to polish up its Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer
“brochure,” which was last revised when Joel Klein was still the Assistant AG, and
which weighs in at about five black on white, word-processor-produced pages of text.
It looks exactly the same in pdf. form as in html — which is to say, boring.
This request for an updated Consumer-Antitrust brochure is inspired by the brand new,
multi-color, image-filled and professionally-designed European Union e-brochure
entitled EU competition Policy and the Consumer — 30 lively and informative pages
that might actually motivate the consumer-citizen to become interested in antitrust
and competition policy (a goal much supported by your Editor).
The EU competition guide “explains how the European Commission, together with
national competition authorities, aims to ensure that there is free and fair competition
in the European Union.” It explains how they:
• take action against business practices which restrict competition;
• examine mergers to see if they reduce competition;
• open up competition in areas previously controlled by State-run monopolies;
• vet financial support given to companies by EU national governments;
• cooperate with other competition authorities around the world.
So, come on, R. Hewitt Pate (Asst. U.S. AG for Antitrust), where’s your spirit of innovation
and rivalry? If you’re not moved by the better product offered to European consumers,
check out the Federal Trade Commission’s slightly snazzier and much more informative,
plain-English guide called “Promoting Competition, Protecting Consumers.”
For example, the FAQ page in the FTC Guide gives several examples of
situations many Americans complain about — e.g., gasoline prices, drug-makers
with no generic competition, local cable monopoly — and explains why they
may or may not violate the antitrust laws.
Maybe a visitor to the f/k/a who is graphically talented could offer to assist the Assistant
Attorney General for Antitrust in producing some better public relations materials. The
American public needs to know how competition is protected by antitrust laws and
how smart competition policy can help bring consumers and businesses the benefits of
an innovative, customer-oriented marketplace, while ensuring that Government action
interfere as little as possible with marketplace dynamics.
Right now, you can also find annotated links to resources on Antitrust and Consumers,
and Primers, in the Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web, at the American Antitrust
Institute website.
as far as the light goes
my daughter goes
after the firefly
Gary Hotham from breathmarks:
December 16, 2004
our lackluster trustbuster pr
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Speaking of DOJ Antitrust, what do you think of this:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=59274
Justice Department denounces effort to limit legal competition
By Associated Press
Thursday, December 16, 2004
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department on Thursday said a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court proposal outlining services that lawyers and nonlawyers can perform would unfairly limit competition and raise legal costs.
In a letter to the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission urged against the proposal, saying it could hamper real estate agents and accountants in helping their clients buy homes or file taxes.
The court’s proposal defines legal practices, and outlines what Justice called “broad restrictions” on work done by nonlawyers. The MBA has appointed a task force to draft a definition of the practice of law.
Such limits, said the Justice Department, would not be in the best interest of consumers who would be forced to pay higher rates for attorneys, when a lay person could do the work for less.
“Without competition from nonlawyers, lawyers’ fees are likely to increase,” said Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, R. Hewitt Pate.
Pate and FTC Chairman Deborah P. Majoras said the proposal could be interpreted to prevent real estate agents from explaining smoke detector laws, or prohibit companies from selling will-writing software.
Comment by Mike — December 16, 2004 @ 9:51 pm
Speaking of DOJ Antitrust, what do you think of this:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=59274
Justice Department denounces effort to limit legal competition
By Associated Press
Thursday, December 16, 2004
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department on Thursday said a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court proposal outlining services that lawyers and nonlawyers can perform would unfairly limit competition and raise legal costs.
In a letter to the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission urged against the proposal, saying it could hamper real estate agents and accountants in helping their clients buy homes or file taxes.
The court’s proposal defines legal practices, and outlines what Justice called “broad restrictions” on work done by nonlawyers. The MBA has appointed a task force to draft a definition of the practice of law.
Such limits, said the Justice Department, would not be in the best interest of consumers who would be forced to pay higher rates for attorneys, when a lay person could do the work for less.
“Without competition from nonlawyers, lawyers’ fees are likely to increase,” said Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, R. Hewitt Pate.
Pate and FTC Chairman Deborah P. Majoras said the proposal could be interpreted to prevent real estate agents from explaining smoke detector laws, or prohibit companies from selling will-writing software.
Comment by Mike — December 16, 2004 @ 9:51 pm
Ah, Grasshopper84, you were not yet a gleam in the Great Weblogger’s eye, when ethicalEsq was discussing the topic of defining the practice of law back in 2003.
Our post in Sept. 2003 A Cogent Dissent on the ABA’s Approach to Defining the Practice of Law discusses many of the issues, and quotes from the Section on Law Practice Management’s White Paper, submitted to the ABA Task Force on the Model Definition of the Practice of Law:
You will also find similar issues cogently treated in the post Do Arizona’s New UPL Rules Protect Consumers or Lawyers? Like most people who favor consumer interests over the interests of the Lawyer Guild/Cartel, I believe the FTC and DOJ are correct in advocating that each state think very long and hard before broadening the definition of the practice of law and thereby limiting consumer options and sources of competition in legal services. [Find more ethicalEsq posts on related topics on the ULP Archives page.]
By the way, the consumer legal reform group HALT has adopted a position about defining the practice of law that is even more stringent than the DOJ/FTC position. See Lawyer vs. NonLawyer, an article appearing in Legal Times (02-03-2003),by James C. Turner, HALT’s Executive Director. Turner argues against the ABA’s proposed model rule defining “practice of law” and its corollary of “unauthorized practice.” Turner says the proposed model rule “poses a major threat to the rights of millions of American consumers who choose to handle their routine legal tasks with the help of nonlawyer resources.” In 2002, HALT opposed attempts by Arizona attorneys to curb competition from non-lawyers by expanding the definition of the “unauthorized practice of law.”
The Consumer Federation of America endorsed the HALT position in 2003, with this proclamation:
Here are annotated links from the AAI website research Guide, on this topic.
Comment by David Giacalone — December 16, 2004 @ 10:36 pm
Ah, Grasshopper84, you were not yet a gleam in the Great Weblogger’s eye, when ethicalEsq was discussing the topic of defining the practice of law back in 2003.
Our post in Sept. 2003 A Cogent Dissent on the ABA’s Approach to Defining the Practice of Law discusses many of the issues, and quotes from the Section on Law Practice Management’s White Paper, submitted to the ABA Task Force on the Model Definition of the Practice of Law:
You will also find similar issues cogently treated in the post Do Arizona’s New UPL Rules Protect Consumers or Lawyers? Like most people who favor consumer interests over the interests of the Lawyer Guild/Cartel, I believe the FTC and DOJ are correct in advocating that each state think very long and hard before broadening the definition of the practice of law and thereby limiting consumer options and sources of competition in legal services. [Find more ethicalEsq posts on related topics on the ULP Archives page.]
By the way, the consumer legal reform group HALT has adopted a position about defining the practice of law that is even more stringent than the DOJ/FTC position. See Lawyer vs. NonLawyer, an article appearing in Legal Times (02-03-2003),by James C. Turner, HALT’s Executive Director. Turner argues against the ABA’s proposed model rule defining “practice of law” and its corollary of “unauthorized practice.” Turner says the proposed model rule “poses a major threat to the rights of millions of American consumers who choose to handle their routine legal tasks with the help of nonlawyer resources.” In 2002, HALT opposed attempts by Arizona attorneys to curb competition from non-lawyers by expanding the definition of the “unauthorized practice of law.”
The Consumer Federation of America endorsed the HALT position in 2003, with this proclamation:
Here are annotated links from the AAI website research Guide, on this topic.
Comment by David Giacalone — December 16, 2004 @ 10:36 pm