Should the Government Prosecute Monopolies?
55 Pages Posted: 5 Apr 2008 Last revised: 18 Oct 2009
Abstract
In the past few years, courts and the Department of Justice have cited approvingly the Court's dicta in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP. This article analyzes why the economic thinking in Trinko is wrong, and how the Court ignores its precedent involving the Sherman Act's concerns of monopolies' political, social and ethical implications. It responds to the Court's claim that cartel behavior is easier to identify and remedy than monopolistic behavior and proposes an improvement to the Court's current rule of reason standard to reduce the risk of false positives, while enabling the antitrust agencies and courts to remedy more quickly certain monopolistic conduct.
Keywords: Antitrust, Monopolies, Sherman Act, Law & Economics, Dynamic Efficiency, Innovation, Cartels, Oligopolies
JEL Classification: D42, D43, K21, L12, L40, L41, L43, 031
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Pleading Standards after Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
By Scott Dodson
-
Free Riding: An Overstated, and Unconvincing, Explanation for Resale Price Maintenance
By Marina Lao
-
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006 Term and Beyond
-
The Proper Role of Courts: The Mistakes of the Supreme Court in Leegin
-
The Roberts Court after Two Years: Antitrust, Intellectual Property Rights, and Competition Policy
-
Take Two: Stare Decisis in Antitrust - The Per Se Rule Against Horizontal Price-Fixing
-
Rights and Remedies Post Ebay v. Mercexchange - Deep Waters Stirred