Advertisement

“High-Tech” Antitrust: Incoherent, Misguided, Obsolete, or None of the Above? Comments on Crandall-Jackson and Wright

  • Timothy J. Brennan
Article

Abstract

That prominent antitrust cases have been in the “high-tech” arena is not surprising, since high-tech industries are often susceptible to the scale economies that lead to highly concentrated or monopoly markets. Crandall and Jackson’s observations on the IBM case are on point. Regarding AT&T, the salient observation is that recent changes in legal doctrine may make it impossible to bring antitrust cases in regulated industries. The problem with the Microsoft case was not that it was right or wrong, but that it was fundamentally incoherent. Wright’s critique of the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Intel is problematic because buyers in exclusion cases tend to be better off, not victims as they would be under collusion or anticompetitive mergers. As these observations apply more generally to cases in sectors that are not associated with high-tech, I offer a few thoughts on some antitrust issues that are particular to high-tech sectors, specifically how the prospect of innovation could affect market definition in merger cases and, more broadly, whether dynamic efficiencies reduce the need for antitrust enforcement.

Keywords

Monopolization Regulation Microsoft Loyalty discounts Exclusion Antitrust and innovation 

References

  1. Brennan T. (1987) Why regulated firms should be kept out of unregulated markets: Understanding the divestiture in U.S. v. AT&T. Antitrust Bulletin 32(3): 741–793Google Scholar
  2. Brennan T. (2001) Do easy cases make bad law? Antitrust innovation or missed opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft. George Washington Law Review 69: 1042–1102Google Scholar
  3. Brennan T. (2005) Trinko v. Baxter: The Demise of U.S. v. AT&T. Antitrust Bulletin 50(4): 635–664Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, T. (2007). Should innovation rationalize supra-competitive prices? A skeptical speculation. In: Fredenberg A. The pros and cons of high prices (pp. 88–127). Stockholm: Konkurrensverket/Swedish Competition Authority.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan T. (2008) Bundled rebates as exclusion rather than predation. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 4: 335–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (2010). Antitrust evaluation of horizontal mergers: An economic alternative to market definition. B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 10(1), Article 9. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=bejte.
  7. Federal Trade Commission. (2010). Is there life after Trinko and Credit Suisse? The role of antitrust in regulated industries. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://www.ftc.gov/os/testimony/100615antitrusttestimony.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Public Policy and EconomicsUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations