These comments are respectfully submitted both as to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines ("HMG") generally, and also to questions 1-10., 12-15. They show that as a litigation matter the current HMG must be replaced because they are dependent on the PNB presumption, which will be overruled under the Supreme Court's GTE Sylvania and later presumption cases, and that new merger guidelines (and antitrust analysis generally) should be based on productivity and the Supreme Court's Cracking Oil opinion and recent cases. A productivity-based advance in economic theory and antitrust analysis developed over thirty years by Harvard Business School Prof. Michael Porter is discussed in this comment, in my recent article "The Roberts Court and the Supreme Court's New Antitrust Law for the Global Knowledge Economy in a 'Perfect Storm' of Danger -- and Opportunity," 54:1 ANTITRUST BULLETIN 157-231 (2009), and in the book MICHAEL PORTER, PETER STAUDHAMMER & CHARLES WELLER, UNIQUE VALUE (2005)(hereafter UNIQUE VALUE). Also attached to this comment are excerpts from: 1. MICHAEL PORTER, Competition and Antitrust: A Productivity-Based Approach, Chap 6, in UNIQUE VALUE (2005). 2. MICHAEL PORTER et al., Moving To A New Global Competitiveness Index, Chap. 1.2, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT 2008-2009 (2008). As background, I have been an antitrust lawyer for 37 years (see Appendix). I recently was antitrust trial counsel in a criminal case in Cleveland where two individuals and their company were acquitted in a three week jury trial in June 2009, U. S. v. Alliance National Limited Partnership (judgment entered in favor of Alliance and Francis DeMilta on Count 1 and in favor of Ronald Vaughan on Counts 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 of the Superseding Indictment).