Don't Ditch Antitrust's Role in Product Hopping: A Response to Pace and Adam

33 Antitrust 72 (2009)

2 Pages Posted: 28 Apr 2019

Date Written: April 22, 2019

Abstract

When a brand drug firm reformulates its product, encourages doctors to prescribe the new version, and can offer no justification other than harming generic rivals, antitrust liability should be on the table. We thus disagree with Jack E. Pace III and Kevin C. Adam, who would limit antitrust liability in "product hopping" cases to deceptive reformulations or sham innovation. This short piece discusses.

Keywords: antitrust, product hopping, pharmaceuticals, drugs, innovation

JEL Classification: I18, K21, L40, L41, L43, L65, O34, O38

Suggested Citation

Carrier, Michael A. and Shadowen, Steve, Don't Ditch Antitrust's Role in Product Hopping: A Response to Pace and Adam (April 22, 2019). 33 Antitrust 72 (2009). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3378593

Michael A. Carrier (Contact Author)

Rutgers Law School ( email )

217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102-1203
United States
856-225-6380 (Phone)
856-225-6516 (Fax)

Steve Shadowen

Hilliard & Shadowen LLP ( email )

39 West Main Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
11
Abstract Views
170
PlumX Metrics