The marine world has been reasonably bereft of conflict over the weekend. Instead I'm pointing at an area where I have negligible knowledge: tribal sovereignty. As it happens, some American indian tribes are using (selling? leasing?) their immunity to drug companies and payday lenders - the idea being that if the tribe is doing something, and the tribe is a sovereign government, then the tribe can't be sued for its actions no matter how despicable. A very good though brief summary is here.
And buying drug patents to extend their lives, and offering shelter to payday lenders, strike me as reasonably unlikely to end well for our sellers. I hope they're getting top dollar up front. If you're a Posnerian at heart, finding your outcome then backing into how you get there, this is guaranteed to end poorly for the tribes, with uncertain downstream effect.
In constitutional law, there's the idea of a market participant: a state can't favor its own when it's acting as a state government, but when it's acting as just another market participant, it can - for instance, when Louisiana funds LSU, it can favor Louisiana residents over Texas residents. I wonder if somehow there will be an analogous idea that when a tribe inserts itself as a market participant, it loses that immunity.
For a similar argument (that states should lose immunity to antitrust when they are a market participant) see here, and regarding employment, see here.