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
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