Mashable.com, September 21, 2011
On a Senate Antitrust Subcommittee hearing on Google:
Jonathan Rubin, an attorney with Rubin PLLC who specializes in antitrust cases, ...
believes the government's case against Google is weak since the company doesn't charge for its services, which takes competitive pricing off the table. Rubin says that lacking the pricing angle, the government would have to make the case that Google is sabotaging rival services like Bing. Successfully arguing that Google is favoring its own properties is even murkier ground, Rubin says, since Google's search product hinges on providing the best results and being an 'honest broker" (a.k.a disinterested intermediary). That case, which the government will advance with testimony from the CEOs of Yelp and NexTag, is also not a clear-cut violation of antitrust laws, Rubin says.
Associated Press, April 5, 2011
Jonathan Rubin, a Washington trial attorney and antitrust expert, said he sees an "uphill battle" for the players in court.
"Because they could be prevented from shopping for the legal framework, whether that's antitrust law or labor law. The federal court might decide that this is not within the power of private parties to determine by contract, which is the implicit thing the players are asking for," said Rubin, a former partner of DeMaurice Smith, the head of the NFL Players Association before it dissolved. "It's a very tricky case, because there's very little precedent to go on."
"Ultimately both parties are better off sticking to the business of football," Rubin said, "and both parties know that somewhere deep down and they're going to have to get to a point where there's diminishing returns to continuing litigation."
National Law Journal, August 31, 2010
On Princo v. International Trade Commission:
A story in the National Law Journal about the en banc opinion in Princo v. International Trade Comm'n entitled "Full Federal Circuit narrowly applies patent misuse doctrine" reported on Rubin's reaction to the decision:
Rubin said the majority "has put formalism before substance" by requiring that patent misuse must involve extending the physical or temporal scope of the patent. "In my view, it's an improper use of the patent right to force the market to accept a standard devised by two companies," Rubin said.
"Industry standard-setting 'can be very beneficial, but it's important to keep in mind what's at stake when setting a standard that involves patented technologies because 'you necessarily exclude other technologies," he said. "That is too important and it involves too much market power to leave to the devices of two private companies."
E-Commerce Times, May 11, 2009
On the European Commission investigation of Intel:
E-Commerce Times, in a story on the implications of an action by European Union competition authorities against Intel for abuse of dominance, reported:
Taken together, the possibility of a record fine against the market-leading chipmaker in Europe and the promise of stronger regulation in the U.S. suggests a sea change that could have a substantial impact on Intel, antitrust attorney Jonathan Rubin ... told the E-Commerce Times.
"I think it's showing more convergence between the U.S. and the EU in an area we didn't really expect for there to be convergence," he said. "I think that it appears to be part of a larger trend where we're correcting a course that we've been on more or less since the '80s."
Law360, September 25, 2008
On Rubin's testimony on the future of small business:
Law360 covered Rubin's testimony at a hearing on the future of small business before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business:
Antitrust lawyer Jonathan Rubin ... said the agencies need to adopt a more aggressive approach to exclusionary conduct, such as bundling and loyalty discounting, by dominant companies, and recognize the concept of vertical market power.
"Current antitrust policy leads to a non-interventionist standard of dominant firm exclusionary conduct," said Rubin ....
Daily Record (Baltimore), September 8, 2008
On NCRA v. Equifax:
Reporting on NCRA v. Equifax, a Daily Record story explained the basis of the suit:
"It's Freddie Mac's portal to their money, basically," said Jonathan L. Rubin, the plaintiffs' attorney. "If you don't have access to Freddie Mac, you're not going to last very long in the credit reporting business… It's indisputable."
According to the lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, the NCRA represents two-thirds of the mortgage credit reporting agencies that produce reports acceptable to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development — the major government housing players.
Los Angeles Times, April 5, 2007
On FreeConference.Com v. AT&T:
In a story entitled "Phone firms hung up over fees" Rubin commented on the antitrust suit against AT&T filed by his client, FreeConference.Com:
Jonathan L. Rubin, a Washington lawyer for FreeConference.com, which filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T, said the big carriers were upset "because their business model discounts long distance steeply, so when call volumes go up, their revenue doesn't go up as much.' 'Instead of adjusting and dealing with reality, they've got a monopolist's mind-set and think that everything should conform to how much money they should be making."
Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2007
On the possible acquisition of EMI:
Rubin was quoted in an L.A. Times story entitled "Warner again signals interest in buying EMI," which noted:
the shift to digital that has crippled the industry might be enough to persuade regulators to let this deal go forward, said Jonathan Rubin, an antitrust lawyer ... "because labels have less control setting prices than they did in the past."
National Journal, July 17, 2006
On the AT&T-SBC and Verizon-MCI Mergers:
The National Journal ran a story on the telecom mega-mergers in which Rubin explained the need for economist Joseph Farrell and law professor Darren Bush to appear in the court proceeding approving the transactions:
"In the pending case, the court has been insufficiently briefed on the public interest implications of the telecom mergers between AT&T and SBC Communications and MCI and Verizon Communications -- and therefore needs the insights of the two experts," Jonathan Rubin, an American Antitrust Institute senior fellow, argued in the group's Monday court filing.
National Law Journal's Technology Daily, April 27, 2006
On ADM v. Intel
After releasing a report on the ADM v. Intel monopolization litigation, Rubin gave the following comments to Technology Daily:
[Rubin] said AMD has accused Intel of bribes, threats and dirty tricks related to the microprocessor market. The paper argues that the case is significant because of the potential effects on the market for products that employ x86 microprocessors. ... Rubin said the dispute could influence price choice in the economy. "It represents a significant test for what is lawful or not lawful' for a monopolistic company to do," he said.
Rubin testifying on the ramifications of the AT&T-BellSouth merger before the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee