<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Antitrust Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antitrustreview.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com</link>
	<description>News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:22:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DOJ Files Suit over e-Books Against Apple and Publishers cialis by legal advice online</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/2260/comment-page-1#comment-41475</link>
		<dc:creator>legal advice online</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=2260#comment-41475</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;At least the US government departments are trying to do something about UN-competitive practices. In the UK it appears our Government has buried its head in the sand or bowed to intense lobbying by Big Business to keep prices artificially high. Not just on e-books but on virtually everything you can think of from gas for the car to electricity to keep you alive in the winter&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least the US government departments are trying to do something about UN-competitive practices. In the UK it appears our Government has buried its head in the sand or bowed to intense lobbying by Big Business to keep prices artificially high. Not just on e-books but on virtually everything you can think of from gas for the car to electricity to keep you alive in the winter</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DOJ Files Suit over e-Books Against Apple and Publishers cialis by James David</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/2260/comment-page-1#comment-34175</link>
		<dc:creator>James David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=2260#comment-34175</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Ya I agree with James, that percentage is waay to high for Apple.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ya I agree with James, that percentage is waay to high for Apple.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DOJ Files Suit over e-Books Against Apple and Publishers cialis by James @ austin-car-accident-lawyer.com</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/2260/comment-page-1#comment-26804</link>
		<dc:creator>James @ austin-car-accident-lawyer.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 20:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=2260#comment-26804</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That&#039;s really a high percentage that Apple gets.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s really a high percentage that Apple gets.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on WPT Files Answer in Antitrust Lawsuit by Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/666/comment-page-1#comment-25072</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawsuit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/666#comment-25072</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the info on the lawsuit. Appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the info on the lawsuit. Appreciate it.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on AT&amp;T-T-Mobile Merger Is Off by Estate Litigation Lawyers Sydney</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/2244/comment-page-1#comment-24603</link>
		<dc:creator>Estate Litigation Lawyers Sydney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=2244#comment-24603</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;taking antitrust enforcement - ll be happy if i see these merge and effectively work together in this competitive market&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>taking antitrust enforcement &#8211; ll be happy if i see these merge and effectively work together in this competitive market</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on News Round Up by Brentwood Academy v. TSSAA: The Unnerving Recruitment of Middle School Athletes? - Gorkemgozleme Sports &#124; World&#039;s Sport News</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/374/comment-page-1#comment-22278</link>
		<dc:creator>Brentwood Academy v. TSSAA: The Unnerving Recruitment of Middle School Athletes? - Gorkemgozleme Sports &#124; World&#039;s Sport News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:27:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/374#comment-22278</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] 37-page decision supplies other rationales, and I encourage you to read it in full (and check out Antitrust Review for its take). But should we agree with the court that the letters sent by the coach did not [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 37-page decision supplies other rationales, and I encourage you to read it in full (and check out Antitrust Review for its take). But should we agree with the court that the letters sent by the coach did not [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Antitrust, Search Warrants And Data by Dan Goldfine</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1662/comment-page-1#comment-21739</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Goldfine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1662#comment-21739</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Did you receive any responses?  Also, I am looking for data on search warrants and in particular business crimes.  Any recommendations?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you receive any responses?  Also, I am looking for data on search warrants and in particular business crimes.  Any recommendations?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 1992 Merger Guidelines to be Revised (and Market Definition Here to Stay) by TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; Varney on the Merger Guidelines</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1685/comment-page-1#comment-21125</link>
		<dc:creator>TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; Varney on the Merger Guidelines</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1685#comment-21125</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] recently in the Farrel &amp; Shapiro article (pdf).  Interestingly, while Varney is previously  on record opposing this movement, elsewhere in this speech she seems to endorse it: There is a growing body [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] recently in the Farrel &amp; Shapiro article (pdf).  Interestingly, while Varney is previously  on record opposing this movement, elsewhere in this speech she seems to endorse it: There is a growing body [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Google and Legal Search by Hanno Kaiser</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1743/comment-page-1#comment-19811</link>
		<dc:creator>Hanno Kaiser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1743#comment-19811</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Finally! Combined with the Book Settlement (soon) and Google Scholar indexing of SSRN, this will be very, very useful. What I now need is a little utility to highlight a citation, right click, and get the opinion delivered in my browser. Sounds like a nice Thanksgiving project ...&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally! Combined with the Book Settlement (soon) and Google Scholar indexing of SSRN, this will be very, very useful. What I now need is a little utility to highlight a citation, right click, and get the opinion delivered in my browser. Sounds like a nice Thanksgiving project &#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on House Judiciary Committee Votes To Repeal McCarran-Ferguson by Manfred</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1719/comment-page-1#comment-19500</link>
		<dc:creator>Manfred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1719#comment-19500</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;From the linked article:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In a letter sent to Conyers before the vote, Karen Ignagni, president of America&#039;s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, criticized the legislation as attempting &quot;to remedy a problem that does not exist.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wish I knew what non-existing problem Ignagni was referring to: was it the claimed absence of agreements that would violate Â§1 but for McC-F, or was it the claimed absence of consumer harm?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the linked article:</p>

<p>In a letter sent to Conyers before the vote, Karen Ignagni, president of America&#8217;s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, criticized the legislation as attempting &#8220;to remedy a problem that does not exist.&#8221;</p>

<p>I wish I knew what non-existing problem Ignagni was referring to: was it the claimed absence of agreements that would violate Â§1 but for McC-F, or was it the claimed absence of consumer harm?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Could AAG Varney have been more forceful? by TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; What Am I Missing About Antitrust Exemptions?</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1699/comment-page-1#comment-19439</link>
		<dc:creator>TRUTH ON THE MARKET &#187; What Am I Missing About Antitrust Exemptions?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1699#comment-19439</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] when Congress should address&#8221; repeal of the insurance industry antitrust exemption?  (HT: Antitrust Review).  That is the Antitrust Division.  One of the agencies responsible for enforcing the antitrust [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] when Congress should address&#8221; repeal of the insurance industry antitrust exemption?  (HT: Antitrust Review).  That is the Antitrust Division.  One of the agencies responsible for enforcing the antitrust [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bill Introduced to Overturn Twombly by TH Makeig</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1665/comment-page-1#comment-18825</link>
		<dc:creator>TH Makeig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1665#comment-18825</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Will a simple mandate to return to the Conley standard actually work? Will the Supreme Court object that it invades the province of the judiciary to say what the law is? Is it necessary instead to restate the notice pleading standard and codify it, rather than merely referring the federal courts with approval to a specific case?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will a simple mandate to return to the Conley standard actually work? Will the Supreme Court object that it invades the province of the judiciary to say what the law is? Is it necessary instead to restate the notice pleading standard and codify it, rather than merely referring the federal courts with approval to a specific case?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Hot Sexy Models &#8230; by Thom</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/805/comment-page-1#comment-18699</link>
		<dc:creator>Thom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/805#comment-18699</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Now that&#039;s my kind of legal brief!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that&#8217;s my kind of legal brief!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Google And Antitrust by David Fischer</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1634/comment-page-1#comment-18371</link>
		<dc:creator>David Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 17:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1634#comment-18371</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Not my caveat, but the newspaper&#039;s.  That said, I would agree that Google - like most companies - has more than one class (or type) of consumer.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not my caveat, but the newspaper&#8217;s.  That said, I would agree that Google &#8211; like most companies &#8211; has more than one class (or type) of consumer.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Google And Antitrust by geoff</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1634/comment-page-1#comment-18321</link>
		<dc:creator>geoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 00:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1634#comment-18321</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The problem with your caveat at the end is that searchers are not the only consumers.  I agreee that the antitrust theories here seem weak, but the right &quot;consumers&quot; that the agencies will be &quot;protecting&quot; are advertisers and content providers.  Not necessarily searchers.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with your caveat at the end is that searchers are not the only consumers.  I agreee that the antitrust theories here seem weak, but the right &#8220;consumers&#8221; that the agencies will be &#8220;protecting&#8221; are advertisers and content providers.  Not necessarily searchers.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Antitrust, Deceptive Conduct Under Consumer Protection Statutes and Indirect Purchasers by Websites tagged "civil" on Postsaver</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1423/comment-page-1#comment-18186</link>
		<dc:creator>Websites tagged "civil" on Postsaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1423#comment-18186</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] - Antitrust, Deceptive Conduct Under Consumer Protection Statutes and Indirect Purchasers saved by jayschellenberg2009-03-17 - Connecticut’s Civil War 29th Colored Regiment Honored saved [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8211; Antitrust, Deceptive Conduct Under Consumer Protection Statutes and Indirect Purchasers saved by jayschellenberg2009-03-17 &#8211; Connecticut’s Civil War 29th Colored Regiment Honored saved [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Marine Hose Price Fixing by Industrial Hoses</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/967/comment-page-1#comment-18023</link>
		<dc:creator>Industrial Hoses</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/967#comment-18023</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Price fixing is an unacceptable practice in pretty much any situation.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Price fixing is an unacceptable practice in pretty much any situation.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HSR and the Bank Bailout by Manfred Gabriel</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1574/comment-page-1#comment-17855</link>
		<dc:creator>Manfred Gabriel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1574#comment-17855</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Alan, wonderful story! It would be so much fun to scare the wedding party with gun-jumping charges... But I doubt whether marriage would qualify as an acquisition of voting securities or assets (wouldn&#039;t think so), just because the holdings of spouses are aggregated.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan, wonderful story! It would be so much fun to scare the wedding party with gun-jumping charges&#8230; But I doubt whether marriage would qualify as an acquisition of voting securities or assets (wouldn&#8217;t think so), just because the holdings of spouses are aggregated.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HSR and the Bank Bailout by Alan L. Marx</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1574/comment-page-1#comment-17853</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan L. Marx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1574#comment-17853</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This discussion reminds me of a conversation with Ron Carr when he was Deputy Attorney General in the Baxter years.  Ron said his office once had to research whether a filing would be required under HSR if the widow of a poultry magnate, presumably the ultimate parent entity of a large flock, agreed to marry the principal owner of another large poultry company.  Could the antitrust authorities hold up the wedding with a second request?  Ron did not tell me the answer, and I never looked for an exemption.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This discussion reminds me of a conversation with Ron Carr when he was Deputy Attorney General in the Baxter years.  Ron said his office once had to research whether a filing would be required under HSR if the widow of a poultry magnate, presumably the ultimate parent entity of a large flock, agreed to marry the principal owner of another large poultry company.  Could the antitrust authorities hold up the wedding with a second request?  Ron did not tell me the answer, and I never looked for an exemption.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Leibowitz Nominated As FTC Chairman by David Fischer</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1567/comment-page-1#comment-17815</link>
		<dc:creator>David Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1567#comment-17815</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nice to know.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice to know.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Leibowitz Nominated As FTC Chairman by Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1567/comment-page-1#comment-17813</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:26:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/?p=1567#comment-17813</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Particularly since he is already a sitting Commissioner, and thus doesn&#039;t need to be separately confirmed to be designated as Chairman. :)  (Not that the White House announcement makes that particularly clear...)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Particularly since he is already a sitting Commissioner, and thus doesn&#8217;t need to be separately confirmed to be designated as Chairman. <img src='http://www.antitrustreview.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />   (Not that the White House announcement makes that particularly clear&#8230;)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Posner, Unions, The UAW and Cartels by Joe Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1490/comment-page-1#comment-16943</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1490#comment-16943</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Isn&#039;t this why there&#039;s an express labor exemption in the antitrust laws?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t this why there&#8217;s an express labor exemption in the antitrust laws?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on PA Health Insurance Company Merger Before the US Senate by van quote</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1421/comment-page-1#comment-16787</link>
		<dc:creator>van quote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1421#comment-16787</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;With the two biggest companies in Pennsylvania merging, this could work out worse or better for Pennsylvania’s.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When you can go only to one health insurance company, that wouldn’t be fair on consumers because they can give out varied rates from year to year and as they say, like take it or leave it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sometimes it’s a good thing for companies to merge but this usually means, job cuts and higher premiums in a few years time.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Robert&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>

<p>With the two biggest companies in Pennsylvania merging, this could work out worse or better for Pennsylvania’s.</p>

<p>When you can go only to one health insurance company, that wouldn’t be fair on consumers because they can give out varied rates from year to year and as they say, like take it or leave it.</p>

<p>Sometimes it’s a good thing for companies to merge but this usually means, job cuts and higher premiums in a few years time.</p>

<p>Robert</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DOJ Was 3 Hours Away From Suing Google by jay</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1484/comment-page-1#comment-16776</link>
		<dc:creator>jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:06:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1484#comment-16776</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;And the plaintiffs in that lawsuit would not simply have been the United States, but would have included States as well.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the plaintiffs in that lawsuit would not simply have been the United States, but would have included States as well.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on EC on Pharmaceuticals by Jeong Chun Phuoc</title>
		<link>http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1481/comment-page-1#comment-16756</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeong Chun Phuoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/1481#comment-16756</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Anti-competitive Competition&quot; (30.11.2008) &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&quot;The Anti-competitive Competition&quot; enunciated by Jeong is the unintended conflict between two competing force that have similarly shared core value if, not the same, ultruism. In such a scenario, there is an immediate need to take harmonisation effort to resolve seemingly contradicting value and norms in the two competitive &#039;Allies&#039; as against anti-competitive &#039;Axis&#039;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;...........................
Jeong Chun Phuoc
jeongphu@yahoo.com&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Anti-competitive Competition&#8221; (30.11.2008) </p>

<p>&#8220;The Anti-competitive Competition&#8221; enunciated by Jeong is the unintended conflict between two competing force that have similarly shared core value if, not the same, ultruism. In such a scenario, there is an immediate need to take harmonisation effort to resolve seemingly contradicting value and norms in the two competitive &#8216;Allies&#8217; as against anti-competitive &#8216;Axis&#8217;.</p>

<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
Jeong Chun Phuoc
<a href="mailto:jeongphu@yahoo.com">jeongphu@yahoo.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
