Richard Gilbert, Apr 19, 2007
Several antitrust cases have involved allegations of anticompetitive innovation or product design and some plaintiffs and antitrust scholars have argued that investment in research and development that excludes competition can have predatory effects similar to predatory pricing. This article analyzes several tests for predatory innovation, including the rule of reason based on total and consumer welfare and profit sacrifice tests. All of these tests are likely to produce false positives that chill incentives for beneficial investments in research and development. Most courts that have considered allegations of anticompetitive innovation, including the appellate court in U.S. v. Microsoft, have concluded that innovation is not anticompetitive if it has plausible efficiencies. This is close to a test of whether innovation is a sham. While a sham test may fail to identify innovations that harm competition, that risk is acceptable given the high cost of penalizing beneficial innovation.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
NFL Found Guilty of Antitrust Violations in ‘Sunday Ticket’ Trial, Must Pay $4.8 Billion
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
StarKist and Former Bumble Bee Foods Owner Settle US Price-Fixing Suit
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Senate Probes Oil Giants for Price-Fixing with OPEC
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Spain to Lodge Anti-Competitive Complaint Against French Rail Operator Ouigo
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Jury Deliberates NFL’s ‘Sunday Ticket’ Class-Action Lawsuit
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Private Equity Roll-Up Schemes
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
The FTC’s Focus on Private Equity is Warranted
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Unraveling the Roll-Up: Private Equity’s Misunderstood Investment Strategy
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Focus on Private Equity Funds and Serial Acquisitions
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Private Equity Roll-Ups Amidst Heightened Antitrust Enforcement
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI