Greg Sidak joined more than 100 of the world’s top business and economic minds in signing the First Panmure House Declaration. The Declaration was a product of The New Enlightenment: Reshaping Capitalism and the Global Order in a Neo-Mercantilist World, a conference hosted by Edinburgh Business School and the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. The conference, led by Professor David Teece of the Haas School of Business, brought together leading thinkers to reflect on Adam Smith’s foundation of capitalism and look to the future of economics, politics, and society. The resultant Declaration, the first from Adam Smith’s historic house in almost 250 years, affirmed the commitment of the signatories to the values of Smith’s influential works, The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The Declaration asked “international leaders to base their policies and decision-making on a set of common principles, as espoused and formulated by Adam Smith, which cherish the required values of an ethically-based liberal democratic system, a moral commitment to the well-being of our communities and affirm responsibility to protect economic, political and social freedoms, use resources wisely, avoid unintentional consequences, follow the rule of law, favour markets and prices as guides to resource allocation and take a long term view of private and public investments, to support inclusive economic growth and prosperity for all.”June 5, 2019
Who’s Who Legal has named Greg Sidak one of its leading individual thought leaders in competition economics for 2019, alongside David Teece, Michael Katz, and Carl Shapiro of the University of California, Jerry Hausman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Kenneth Elzinga of the University of Virginia, among others.December 16, 2018
Criterion Economics issued a press release today reporting that Judge Ken Starr, former Solicitor General and Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has responded on behalf of his client, J. Gregory Sidak, chairman of Criterion Economics, whom he represents “[a]s a matter of principle and without acceptance of any fee,” to derogatory comments about Mr. Sidak’s expert economic testimony that were made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the International Trade Commission (ITC) in the recommended determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1065, Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof. The 1065 Investigation concerns Apple’s alleged infringement of certain non-standard-essential Qualcomm patents practiced in five models of iPhones. Judge Starr concludes that an appellate court would find multiple rulings by the ALJ that disparage Mr. Sidak to be arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and contrary to established antitrust law. In addition, Judge Starr explains why in his opinion the ALJ’s recommended determination “reached findings that conflict with controlling American antitrust jurisprudence and consequently drive a wedge between the Antitrust Division and the ITC on how properly to use economic principles to diagnose monopoly power.”
Judge Starr delivered a letter to Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, alerting him to the rift that the 1065 Investigation creates between the ITC and the Antitrust Division. Writing from the perspective of an appellate judge reviewing an agency’s action, Judge Starr identifies what he considers to be three reversible errors in the ALJ’s findings concerning Mr. Sidak’s testimony: (1) the ALJ’s inference of monopoly power from market share alone, (2) the ALJ’s finding that Schumpeterian competition across successive generations of monopoly cannot deliver innovation and lower quality-adjusted prices, and (3) the ALJ’s finding that Mr. Sidak was biased and that his expert economic testimony lacked credibility and deserved no evidentiary weight. Judge Starr enclosed with his letter to Mr. Delrahim a copy of Mr. Sidak’s own memorandum to the Antitrust Division, Will the International Trade Commission or the Antitrust Division Set Policy on Monopoly and Innovation. Written in consultation with Judge Starr, the memorandum explains in greater economic detail why the ALJ’s findings in the 1065 Investigation conflict with controlling American antitrust jurisprudence and diminish public confidence in the quality and sophistication of the ITC’s administrative adjudication of patent-infringement disputes.September 26, 2016
On December 17, 2015, the Second Circuit heard oral argument in United States v. American Express Co., No. 15-1672. The three-judge panel questioned the Department of Justice about the analysis of market definition and market power contained in the amicus brief of J. Gregory Sidak, Robert D. Willig, David J. Teece, and Keith N. Hylton. Scholars and experts on the economic analysis of antitrust law, the amici believe that errors in the district court’s opinion threaten to undermine proper economic analysis of antitrust questions in two-sided markets. The amici specifically note three reversible errors committed by the district court concerning: (1) whether American Express possessed market power, (2) the competitive effects of the challenged conduct, and (3) market definition in the two-sided credit card network. Judge Wesley called the judges’ questioning “vigorous” in this “extraordinary” case. One day after oral argument, the Second Circuit, sua sponte, stayed Judge Garaufis’s injunction in United States v. American Express Co., No. 15-1672, and stayed proceedings in any and all matters related to this litigation. On September 26, 2016, Judge Wesley, writing for the Second Circuit, reversed and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of American Express.February 3, 2016
Global Competition Review has nominated Greg Sidak for its 2016 academic excellence award, which is awarded to “[a]n academic competition specialist who has made an outstanding contribution to national and/or international competition policy in 2015.” In addition, Concurrences nominated Greg for writing awards in three categories:
- Asian Antitrust (Academic): FRAND in India: The Delhi High Court's Emerging Jurisprudence on Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents
- Intellectual Property & Antitrust: The Meaning of FRAND, Part II: Injunctions
- Intellectual Property & Antitrust (Business): How Licensing Standard-Essential Patents Is Like Buying a Car
On February 7, 2006, Greg Sidak debated Larry Lessig on network neutrality before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. A decade later, the debate grinds on, with the Federal Communications Commission’s newest rulemaking again being challenged in the D.C. Circuit. Yet the Senate heard virtually every substantive argument for or against net neutrality in the Lessig-Sidak debate a decade ago. Sidak published two exhaustive articles in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics (one with David Teece) on net neutrality.
In 2015, the European Commission issued an official report on FRAND, “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing Terms: Research Analysis of a Controversial Concept,” conducted by the European Commission’s in-house Joint Research Centre at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. The report cites Greg Sidak’s article, The Meaning of FRAND, Part I: Royalties, published in 2013 in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics. The European Commission’s report explains that one reason why the implementation of the “Ex-Ante Incremental Value” approach has been difficult is because, in the view of SEP holders,
“the method amounts to simulating tough price competition between technologies after inventors have sunk their R&D costs, which gives all the bargaining power to the licensee. . . . [The Ex-Ante Incremental Value approach] therefore fails to preserve inventors’ incentives to invest in R&D and to contribute their inventions to the standard-setting process (Sidak, 2013).”November 29, 2014
(Feb. 10, 2015) Global Competition Review nominated Greg Sidak as Economist of the Year, which is awarded to a competition economist whose superior technical skill, practical judgment and excellence in client service demonstrates that he or she is among the very best in the field.
The Economist quoted Judge Robert Bork’s and Greg Sidak’s article, What Does the Chicago School Teach About Internet Search and the Antitrust Treatment of Google?, in a story about the growth of online businesses: “‘That consumers can switch to substitute search engines instantaneously and at zero cost constrains Google’s ability and incentive to act anti-competitively,’ wrote the late Robert Bork, a conservative judge, in a 2012 paper commissioned by Google that he wrote with Gregory Sidak, an antitrust expert. The paper had a wide influence; in 2013 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which had been looking into action against Google, decided not to proceed.”November 12, 2014