IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v6y2010i1p153-202..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation And The Limits Of Antitrust

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey A. Manne
  • Joshua D. Wright

Abstract

Frank Easterbrook's seminal analysis of error-cost minimization in The Limits of Antitrust has special relevance to antitrust intervention in markets where innovation is a critical dimension of competition. Both product and business innovations involve novel practices. Historically, the economics profession has tended initially to rely upon monopoly explanations for such practices. Courts have reacted with similar hostility. But almost always there has followed a more nuanced economic understanding of the business practice that recognized its procompetitive virtues. Antitrust standards have adjusted occasionally to reflect that new economic learning. This sequence has produced a fundamental link between innovation and antitrust error that transcends the uncontroversial point that the probability of false positives and their social costs are both higher in the case of innovation and innovative business practices. We discuss some principles for applying Easterbrook's error-cost framework to innovation. We then discuss the historical relationship between antitrust error and innovation. We conclude by challenging the conventional wisdom that the error-cost approach implies that the rule of reason, rather than per se rules, should apply to most forms of business conduct. We instead identify simple filters to harness existing economic knowledge to design simple rules that minimize error costs. We make five such proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright, 2010. "Innovation And The Limits Of Antitrust," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 153-202.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:6:y:2010:i:1:p:153-202.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhp032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Gilbert, 2007. "Holding Innovation to an Antitrust Standard," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    2. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1990. "The Fable of the Keys," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Daniel F. Spulber, 2008. "Consumer Coordination In The Small And In The Large: Implications For Antitrust In Markets With Network Effects," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 207-262.
    4. Dennis W. Carlton, 2001. "A General Analysis of Exclusionary Conduct and Refusal to Deal - Why Aspen and Kodak are Misguided," NBER Working Papers 8105, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frédéric Marty, 2021. "Competition and Regulatory Challenges in Digital Markets: How to Tackle the Issue of Self-Preferencing?," Working Papers halshs-03227392, HAL.
    2. Andrey Shastitko & Claude Ménard & Natalia Pavlova, 2018. "The curse of antitrust facing bilateral monopoly: Is regulation hopeless?," Russian Journal of Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 4(2), pages 175-196, June.
    3. Joshua Wright, 2011. "Does Antitrust Enforcement in High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404, June.
    4. Svetlana Avdasheva & Polina Kryuchkova, 2013. "Law And Economics Of Antitrust Enforcement In Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/PA/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Thomas W. Hazlett & Joshua D. Wright, 2017. "The Effect of Regulation on Broadband Markets: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence in the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet” Order," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(4), pages 487-507, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    2. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    3. Christian Dahl Winther, 2007. "Optimal research effort and product differentiation in network industries," Economics Working Papers 2007-19, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    4. Bernhard Ebbinghaus, 2009. "Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform," Chapters, in: Lars Magnusson & Jan Ottosson (ed.), The Evolution of Path Dependence, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2020. "Dynamic Vertical Foreclosure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 763-812.
    6. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    7. Zhao, Bin, 2017. "Why will dominant alternative transportation fuels be liquid fuels, not electricity or hydrogen?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 712-714.
    8. Joel West & Jason Dedrick, 2000. "Innovation and Control in Standards Architectures: The Rise and Fall of Japan's PC-98," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 197-216, June.
    9. Michael D. Whinston, 2001. "Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 63-80, Spring.
    10. David Spector, 2011. "Exclusive contracts and demand foreclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(4), pages 619-638, December.
    11. Alexei Alexandrov, 2015. "Anti-Competitive Interconnection: the effects of the elasticity of consumers' expectations and the shape of the network effects function," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 74-99, March.
    12. Marc Flandreau & Clemens Jobst, 2006. "The Empirics of International Currencies: Evidence from the 19th Century," Sciences Po publications n°5529, Sciences Po.
    13. Robert Hahn & Robert Litan & Hal Singer, 2010. "Addressing the next wave of Internet regulation: Toward a workable principle for nondiscrimination," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 365-382, September.
    14. Hervé Dumez & Alain Jeunemaître, 2005. "La démarche narrative en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(4), pages 983-1005.
    15. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    16. Weiss, Avi & Etziony, Amir, 2015. "The role of critical mass in establishing a successful network market: An experimental investigationAuthor-Name: Ruffle, Bradley J," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 101-110.
    17. Knieps, Günter, 2011. "Wettbewerb und Pfadabhängigkeit in Netzen," Discussion Papers 140, University of Freiburg, Institute for Transport Economics and Regional Policy.
    18. Tanjim Hossain & Dylan Minor & John Morgan, 2011. "Competing Matchmakers: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 1913-1925, November.
    19. Carolina Castaldi & Giovanni Dosi, 2003. "The Grip of History and the Scope for Novelty: Some Results and Open Questions on Path Dependence in Economic Processes," LEM Papers Series 2003/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/669 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Vitor Trindade & Johannes Moenius, 2007. "Networks, Standards and Intellectual Property Rights," Working Papers 0705, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:6:y:2010:i:1:p:153-202.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.