Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2006
6 Pages Posted: 10 May 2006
Professor Wright mischaracterizes both the legal basis and the factual context of the FTC's Three Tenors opinion, recently affirmed by Judge Ginsburg's opinion for a unanimous panel of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Neither opinion's legal analysis relies on the timing of the moratorium agreement. Under either opinion, the agreement to eliminate advertising and price competition would have been proscribed even had it occurred when the joint venture was formed. Moreover, the factual underpinnings of the case differ from Professor Wright's assertions. In particular, the facts demonstrate that the joint venture did not attempt to promote the combination of various three tenors products. The only coordination with the first two albums was a restriction on their discounting and advertising. There was none of the production, distribution, and promotion among the three albums normally associated with an integrated effort.
Keywords: Three Tenors, FTC, Federal Trade Commission, antitrust law
JEL Classification: K21, K23, L44, L51
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Muris, Timothy J., Discordant Notes: A Reply to Professor Wright. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 06-21; Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2006. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=901640