-
Settlement in the Microsoft Iowa Litigation
Working with Academic Experts
OVERVIEW | WORKING WITH ACADEMIC EXPERTS | KEY CONCEPTS IN THE LITIGATION
In our work on behalf of Microsoft over the past years, in both class action and competitor antitrust litigations, we have supported a number of academic experts, including: Professors Ray Ball on the relationship of R&D investment and profitability; Robert Hall on affirmative and rebuttal damages; John Hauser on consumer surveys; R. Glenn Hubbard on causation and damages; and Sharon Oster on business strategy and market dynamics.
During the course of the Iowa litigation, Analysis Group supported several of these academic experts as well as the work of a Managing Principal. The work of these experts formed a critical aspect of the arguments developed by defense counsel. These experts, and the areas that they examined, include:
Sharon Oster
Professor Oster would have testified about how fundamental characteristics of both the demand for information technology and conditions of production of that technology explained, in large measure, the strong market position of Microsoft.
Read Professor Oster's professional bio
Christopher Kemerer
Professor Kemerer, an information technology economist, would have described the dynamics of information technology markets and the role of innovation within them, concluding that Microsoft’s success was consistent with these dynamics, and that consumers had benefited from the development of product standards for operating systems.
Read Professor Kemerer's professional bio
Catherine Morrison Paul
Professor Paul would have critiqued the pass-through analysis of a plaintiffs’ expert and concluded that the expert’s findings were not supported by the data and methodology on which she relied.
R. Glenn Hubbard
Professor Hubbard critiqued the damages analysis of two plaintiffs' experts, and also discussed the value of operating systems. He focused, among other things, on the benchmark analyses developed by the plaintiffs’ experts.
Professor Hubbard found that these benchmarks contained a number of critical flaws, including conceptual design, implementation, and insufficient use of data. He concluded that the benchmarks were not a reliable tool for arriving at an accurate measure of damages.
Read Professor Hubbard's professional bio
