|
||||
|
||||
Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IPMark A. LemleyStanford Law School Mark P. McKennaNotre Dame Law School April 10, 2012 Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 100, p. 2055, 2012 Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 424 Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 12-75 Abstract: Antitrust law explicitly depends on market definition. Many issues in IP law also depend on market definition, though that definition is rarely explicit. Applying antitrust's traditional market definition to IP goods leads to some startling results. Despite the received wisdom that IP rights don't necessarily confer market power, a wide array of IP rights do exactly that under traditional antitrust principles. This result requires us to rethink both the overly-rigid way we define markets in antitrust law and the competitive consequences of granting IP protection. Both antitrust and IP must begin to think realistically about those consequences, rather than falling back on rigid formulas or recitation of the mantra that there is no conflict between IP and antitrust.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 63 working papers seriesDate posted: April 11, 2012 ; Last revised: September 19, 2012Suggested Citation |
|
|||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.438 seconds