|
Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New York, USA
Processing request.
|
Illinois, USA
Processing request.
|
Brussels, Belgium
Processing request.
|
Seoul, Korea
Processing request.
|
California, USA
Processing request.
|
If you have any problems downloading this paper,
please click on another Download Location above, or
File name: SSRN-id852844. ; Size: 139K
|
|
Market Definition in Monopolization Cases: A Paradigm is Missing
Lawrence J. White
New York University (NYU) - Leonard N. Stern School of Business; Leonard N. Stern School of Business - Department of Economics
ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY, Wayne D. Collins, ed., Forthcoming
NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 05-27
Abstract:
The question of market definition for monopolization cases - and thus the issue of the possession of market power by the defendant - is crucial for the outcome of these cases. However, unlike antitrust merger analysis, where the DOJ-FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines has provided a successful paradigm for market definition, monopolization cases lack a guiding market definition paradigm. This chapter addresses this issue, shows the problems that arise when a market definition paradigm is absent, and offers some partial remedies. The best remedy, though, would be the development of a suitable market definition paradigm for these cases.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
Accepted Paper Series
Download This Paper
Date posted: November 23, 2005
Suggested CitationWhite, Lawrence J., Market Definition in Monopolization Cases: A Paradigm is Missing. ISSUES IN COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY, Wayne D. Collins, ed., Forthcoming; NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 05-27. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=852844
|
| Feedback to SSRN (Beta) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
