Herbert Hovenkamp, Dec 20, 2012
Notwithstanding hundreds of court decisions and scholarly articles, tying arrangements remain enigmatic. Conclusions that go to either extreme, per se legality or per se illegality, invariably make simplifying assumptions that frequently do not obtain. For example, by ignoring double marginalization or tying product price cuts it becomes very easy to prove that a wide-range of ties are anticompetitive. At the other extreme, by ignoring foreclosure possibilities one can readily conclude that ties are invariably benign. Even when one considers consumer welfare alone, the great majority of ties very likely are competitively benign, with a few exceptions that involve realistic threats of anticompetitive foreclosure.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Canadian Breadmakers Settle Price-Fixing Lawsuit
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
EssilorLuxottica Open to Meta as Shareholder, Says CEO Francesco Milleri
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22, Securing Independent Contractor Status for Uber and Lyft Drivers
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Paramount Global Investor Sues to Block Skydance Media Merger
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Software Vendors Win Class Action Status in Antitrust Case Against CDK Global
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Artificial Intelligence & Antitrust
Jul 24, 2024 by
CPI
On the Antitrust Implications of Embedding Generative AI in Core Platform Services
Jul 24, 2024 by
CPI
Generative AI Partnerships: Separating Good from Bad
Jul 24, 2024 by
CPI
Artificial Intelligence: A New Dimension for Competition?
Jul 24, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Lessons from “I, Robot”
Jul 24, 2024 by
CPI