IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v38y2011i4p387-404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Antitrust Enforcement in High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Wright

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:38:y:2011:i:4:p:387-404
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-011-9297-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11151-011-9297-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-011-9297-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Blair, Roger D. & Kaserman, David L., 2009. "Antitrust Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780195135350.
    2. Bittlingmayer, George & Hazlett, Thomas W., 2000. "DOS Kapital: Has antitrust action against Microsoft created value in the computer industry?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 329-359, March.
    3. Bruce Kobayashi, 2005. "The Economics of Loyalty Rebates and Antitrust Law in the United States," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 1.
    4. Cooper, James C. & Froeb, Luke M. & O'Brien, Dan & Vita, Michael G., 2005. "Vertical antitrust policy as a problem of inference," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 639-664, September.
    5. David S. Evans & Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: DID CONSUMERS WIN?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 497-539.
    6. Manne, Geoffrey & Wright, Joshua, 2011. "Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 1-19.
    7. Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-149, April.
    8. David S. Evans & Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "U.S. v. Microsoft: Did Consumers Win?," NBER Working Papers 11727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Mann, Jeoffrey & Wright, Joshua, 2010. "Innovation and the Limits of antitrust," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 99-123.
    10. Benjamin Klein, 2001. "The Microsoft Case: What Can a Dominant Firm Do to Defend Its Market Position?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 45-62, Spring.
    11. Page, William H. & Lopatka, John E., 2009. "The Microsoft Case," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226644646, December.
    12. 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.
    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. Giacomo Calzolari & Vincenzo Denicolò, 2015. "Exclusive Contracts and Market Dominance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3321-3351, November.
    2. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    3. Kalyn Coatney & Jesse Tack, 2014. "The Impacts of an Antitrust Investigation: A Case Study in Agriculture," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(4), pages 423-441, June.
    4. Thomas Lenard, 2011. "Introduction: Antitrust and the Dynamics of Competition in High-Tech Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(4), pages 311-317, 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. 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.
    2. Atkas, Nihat & Bodt, Eric de & Roll, Richard, 2001. "Market Response to European Regulation," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt0qc9p8gf, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    3. 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.
    4. Radke, Marc-Peter, 2001. "Law and economics of Microsoft vs. U.S. Department of Justice - New paradigm for antitrust in network markets or inefficient lock-in of antitrust policy?," Violette Reihe: Schriftenreihe des Promotionsschwerpunkts "Globalisierung und Beschäftigung" 16/2001, University of Hohenheim, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Evangelisches Studienwerk.
    5. Ravi Mantena & Ramesh Sankaranarayanan & Siva Viswanathan, 2007. "“Exclusive Licensing in Complementary Network Industries”," Working Papers 07-04, NET Institute, revised Apr 2007.
    6. Krishnamurthy, Sandeep, 2009. "CASE: Mozilla vs. Godzilla — The Launch of the Mozilla Firefox Browser," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 259-271.
    7. Zigic, Kresimir & Maçi, Ilir, 2011. "Competition policy and market leaders," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1042-1049, May.
    8. Aktas, Nihat & Bodt, Eric de & Roll, Richard, 2004. "European M&A Regulation is Protectionist," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt9gd3x41d, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    9. Duso, Tomaso & Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, Burcin B., 2011. "How effective is European merger control?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 980-1006.
    10. Kuroda, Toshifumi & Koguchi, Teppei & Ida, Takanori, 2019. "Identifying the effect of mobile operating systems on the mobile services market," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 86-95.
    11. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, May.
    12. Steven J. Davis & Jack MacCrisken & Kevin M. Murphy, 2001. "Economic Perspectives on Software Design: PC Operating Systems and Platforms," NBER Working Papers 8411, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Michael Cichello & Douglas Lamdin, 2006. "Event Studies and the Analysis of Antitrust," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 229-245.
    14. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment," CIG Working Papers SP II 2005-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    15. Avdasheva, Svetlana (Авдашева, Светлана), 2016. "Vertical Restraints in B2B Contracts: The Impact of Competition and Competitiveness [Вертикальные Ограничения В B2b Договорах: Воздействие На Конкуренцию И Конкурентоспособность]," Working Papers 3053, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    16. Török, Ádám, 2011. "A dominanciaproblémák tényeinek értelmezése és a közgazdaság-tudományi módszertan [Interpretation of the facts of dominance problems and the methodology of economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 41-55.
    17. Takanori Adachi & Takeshi Ebina & Makoto Hanazono, 2011. "Option Package Bundling," KIER Working Papers 785, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    18. Günster, Andrea & van Dijk, Mathijs, 2016. "The impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 20-33.
    19. Wayne R. Dunham, 2006. "THE DETERMINATION OF ANTITRUST LIABILITY IN UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE USED TO PROVE ITS CASE," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 549-671.
    20. Gao, Ning & Peng, Ni & Strong, Norman, 2017. "What determines horizontal merger antitrust case selection?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 51-76.

    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:kap:revind:v:38:y:2011:i:4:p:387-404. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.