Bundling and Tying: Should Regulators Use the Per Se Approach or the Rule-of-Reason Approach? Lessons from the Economics Literature
Sonia Di Giannatale, Alexander Elbittar, Dec 20, 2012
A firm that practices tying in the United States can be committing a per se violation of the an- titrust law, and it can be also considered a per se violation of the Article 102 of the EC Treaty. However, there is evidence for the use of the rule-of-reason approach in some courts’ decisions in tying cases, such as United States vs. Microsoft in 2001 and the case against Microsoft in the EC in 2004. Therefore, the question of when a tying case should be ruled under the per se approach or under the rule-of-reason approach is valid and has policy implications. This article is written to shed light into what could be the appropriate answer by presenting several lessons that we can learn from the economics literature.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh