A General Analysis of Exclusionary Conduct and Refusal to Deal - Why Aspen and Kodak are Misguided
AbstractThis paper analyzes the question: When should a single firm have a duty to deal with another? The paper uses a series of economic models to answer the question, assuming the goal is to prevent harm to competition, and applies the economic analysis to the leading cases to show when antitrust enforcement is appropriate and when it is not. The analysis shows that, to prevent harm to competition, the role for antitrust should be quite limited and that two leading cases, Aspen and Kodak, represent a dangerous direction for antitrust policy.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 8105.
Date of creation: Feb 2001
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Reprinted in e-Commerce Antitrust & Trade Practices, Practicing Law Institute, 2001.
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L - Industrial Organization
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2001-02-08 (All new papers)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Ken Heyer, 2008. "Appropriate Antitrust Policy Towards Single-Firm Conduct," EAG Discussions Papers 200802, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
- J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric Rasmusen, 2013. "Exclusive Dealing: Before Bork, and Beyond," Working Papers 2013-11, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
- John Vickers, 2010.
"Competition Policy and Property Rights,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(544), pages 375-392, 05.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Randal C. Picker, 2013.
"Antitrust and Regulation,"
in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 25-61
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Au, Man Ho, 2011. "Network neutrality: Hong Kong's perspectives," 8th Asia-Pacific Regional ITS Conference, Taipei 2011: Convergence in the Digital Age 52338, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
- Dennis W. Carlton, 2007.
"Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?,"
EAG Discussions Papers
200703, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
- David Spector, 2007.
"Exclusive contracts and demand foreclosure,"
PSE Working Papers
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2008. "Safe Harbors for Quantity Discounts and Bundling," EAG Discussions Papers 200801, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
- 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.
- Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.