When film buffs hear “Antitrust: the Movie,” they probably think of the 2001 flick,
starring Ryan Phillippe, Claire Forlani, and Tim Robbins. Well, expand your mind and your
book shelf for another antitrust video, with a more realistic plot and plenty of heroes — Antitrust the
Documentary. The new video will be made for tv and for classrooms, and made possible by an award
of $496,000 granted as part of the Vitamin Cases Consumer Settlement Fund (Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4076 Master File No. 301803, San Francisco County; approved September 8, 2004).
A California court has awarded to the American Antitrust Institute a grant of nearly
half-million dollars to educate California consumers and businesses about the benefits
of the antitrust laws, including the production of a half-hour documentary video for a
television audience and educational materials for high school classrooms.1 The video
will present stories about several actual antitrust cases, demonstrating the harm to
consumers and ways in which the federal government, state government, and private
attorneys brought relief.
A blue ribbon panel of attorneys, economists, and educators in California will advise
on the cases to be presented and a diverse “project team” will provide continuing advice
on quality and tone of the film and other materials.
AAI has selected The Filmmakers Collaborative in
San Francisco to produce and distribute the video. In addition, the video will be modified
for use within a high school curriculum.
The AAI, in conjunction with Street Law, Inc., and the Constitutional Rights Foundation,
will develop and distribute teaching and text materials, and train teachers in California so
that an antitrust section can be inserted into various social science curricula.
With his usual flair for understatement, AAI President Bert Foer explained further:
“Although antitrust may sound like an esoteric and painfully dry topic, it is actually full of drama
with important economic and political implications that often escape public attention. Our film and
materials will be objectively presented, colorful and provocative. They should stimulate a great deal
of interest about the need for promoting and protecting competition in our economy.”
Our Prof. Yabut wonders just what the folks at Von Mises Institute (see Antitrust: The Case for Repeal),
the Competitive Enterprise Institute , and the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism [f/k/a. Center for
the Moral Defense of Capitalism] will have to say about this. Perhaps, they’ll be pleadin’ “Mamas, don’t let
your babies grow up to be antitrust lawyers.”
If you’d like to learn right now about the benefits of antitrust for consumers, go to the annotated links in AAI’s
Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web. (We suggest the EU brochure.) Click here to learn about other
projects funded through the Vitamin Case Settlement Fund.
While you have AAI and Bert Foer on your mind, I suggest reading his op/ed piece on
Social Security and Antitrust (FTC:WATCH, Jan. 31, 2005). Bert summarizes:
“We seem to have made the choice to place more stress on the individual
by putting the individual ever more at risk within the economic sphere,
while reducing the role of the safety net. How much more stress will people
accept before they rebel against the very idea of free markets? Protect or
protectionism: that is the question.”
the thief
is just as he is…
hazy moon
first frost–
flower sellers in a row
hitting their bells
Kobyashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
February 10, 2005
antitrust: the video (and textbook)
As a 
the pond’s frozen
On one of those eerie, northeast, all-gray, winter days (with the tv
weather weenies trying to explain why last night’s forecasted foot
of snow turned into half an inch), I am very pleased that the newest
edition of frogpond, the Haiku Society of America’s journal, just plopped
onto my desk. Here are a few haiku from frogpond, penned by some of
f/k/a‘s good friends:
winter seclusion
a pinch of cumin
a few whole cloves
his quiet funeral—
a man who did
most of the talking
anniversary
her diamond band
missing a chip
from frogpond XXVIII: 1
by dagosan:
wondering where
they go in winter —
pond frogs and children
[Feb.9, 2005]
Snoop-Dog Parents Get a Hearing in Seattle: There was a lot of disappointment
back in December, when the Washington Supreme Court issued its silly decision
criminalizing a parent’s eavesdropping on a minor child’s telephone conversation.
have decided that a minor child has no expectation of privacy vis-a-vis a parent, and was
outside the Washington eavesdropping statute. Instead, the Washington State legislature
has to act in order to decriminalize parents doing what parents should do. A Seattle Times article
today tells of two bills filed to fix the problem. One would merely let parents eavesdrop without
committing a crime, the other would also allow the information gained to be used as evidence.
A local ACLU spokesperson said they support the former but not the
later bill. Some legislators, including the Judicial Committee chairwoman,
are unhappy with depriving minors of their so-called right to privacy without
meeting a “very high burden.” That’s the kind of knee-jerk rights-talk that
gives liberals a bad name. And, makes a lot of them ineffective parents.
The article points out that “Washington is one of 11 states that requires
consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted
or recorded. The other states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. says we should add
“Parents who do not snoop become moot” to the biblical maxim on sparing the rod.
(via Overlawyered.com)
That rake Evan Schaeffer offers another chance to learn about and contribute derogatory
names for lawyers at his Underground weblog.
Many of the posts will, therefore, be pointers to articles by Sheppard lawyers, focusing
on the antitrust and competition activities of DOJ and FTC. I’m still hoping that its editor,
Bob Doyle, will put the “we” back in front of “blog,” and have written him with my plea. (Bob
was a merger maven and lover of language at the FTC, when I was also employed there.) The
weblog, which was officially launched today, has a good review of California’s Proposition 64.
(via Ambrogi)
complaints — this time, using un-explained acronyms and checking email during an in-person
conversation. Thanks, Mon/Mom! Like many other annoying traits that we see too often on
this planet in the Third Millennium, the cause seems to be the belief that so many people have
that they (and what goes on in their own minds) are at the very center of everyone else’s universe.
Which reminds me: Why do so many newspaper websites fail to say where — in what
City and/or State — the newspaper is published?
