A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name . . .

6 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2005  

Timothy J. Muris

George Mason University School of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: March 8, 2005

Abstract

In ignoring the facts of the Three Tenors case and the transactions costs of legal rulemaking, Professor Goldberg would unnecessarily complicate antitrust law to the detriment of consumers. Contrary to his assertions, the FTC's opinion does not favor ownership over contract. The parties could have chosen to coordinate Three Tenors products and promote a "brand," but their contract explicitly provided otherwise. For a small class of cases - in which the parties restrain basic forms of competition such as price or advertising without a claim of consumer benefit - antitrust law avoids the costs of finding market power. In any event, the facts of the Three Tenors case provide a natural experiment revealing that the agreement the Commission proscribed in fact harmed consumers.

Keywords: horizontal restraints, three tenors, rule of reason, truncated rule of reason, quick look

JEL Classification: K21, L41

Suggested Citation

Muris, Timothy J., A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name . . . (March 8, 2005). George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 05-05. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=681416 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.681416

Timothy J. Muris (Contact Author)

George Mason University School of Law ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-8050 (Phone)
703-993-8088 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
146
Rank
111,278
Abstract Views
2,020