IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition


  • Baumol, William J
  • Ordover, Janusz A


No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Baumol, William J & Ordover, Janusz A, 1985. "Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 247-265, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:v:28:y:1985:i:2:p:247-65

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    2. Ricardo J. Caballero & Adam B. Jaffe, 1993. "How High are the Giants' Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth," NBER Chapters,in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, Volume 8, pages 15-86 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Lanjouw, Jean O & Pakes, Ariel & Putnam, Jonathan, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    4. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    5. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gürtler, Oliver & Kräkel, Matthias, 2006. "Mergers, Litigation and Efficiency," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 185, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    2. Bonardi, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "The internal limits to firms' nonmarket activities," MPRA Paper 14500, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Pies, Ingo, 2010. "Theoretische Grundlagen demokratischer Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik: Der Beitrag von William Baumol," Discussion Papers 2010-7, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    4. Kotabe, Masaaki & Wheiler, Kent W., 1998. "Perceptions of anticompetitive practices in Japan and the market performance of foreign firms," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 173-200, November.
    5. Cooter, Robert D., 1996. "The theory of market modernization of law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 141-172, June.
    6. Gürtler, Oliver & Kräkel, Matthias, 2009. "On the inefficiency of merger control," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 53-55, January.
    7. Durling, James P. & Prusa, Thomas J., 2003. "Using safeguard protection to raise domestic rivals' costs," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 47-68, January.
    8. R. Preston McAfee & Hugo Mialon & Sue Mialon, 2005. "Private Antitrust Litigation: Procompetitive or Anticompetitive?," Emory Economics 0524, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
    9. McAfee, R. Preston & Mialon, Hugo M. & Mialon, Sue H., 2008. "Private v. public antitrust enforcement: A strategic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(10-11), pages 1863-1875, October.
    10. repec:oup:jcomle:v:2:y:2006:i:2:p:215-244. is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Schwartz, Warren F. & Wickelgren, Abraham L., 2011. "Optimal antitrust enforcement: Competitor suits, entry, and post-entry competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 967-972.
    12. Schinkel, Maarten Pieter & Tuinstra, Jan, 2006. "Imperfect competition law enforcement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1267-1297, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Massimiliano Vatiero, 2015. "Dominant market position and ordoliberalism," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 62(4), pages 291-306, December.
    15. Hüschelrath, Kai, 2008. "Is it Worth all the Trouble? The Costs and Benefits of Antitrust Enforcement," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-107, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    16. Arndt Christiansen and Wolfgang Kerber & Wolfgang Kerber, 2006. "Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of "Per se Rules vs. Rule of Reason"," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200606, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    17. R. Preston McAfee & Hugo Mialon & Sue Mialon, 2005. "Private Versus Public Antitrust Enforcement: A Strategic Analysis," Emory Economics 0523, Department of Economics, Emory University (Atlanta).
    18. William Shughart & Fred McChesney, 2010. "Public choice theory and antitrust policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 385-406, March.
    19. Aikaterini KOKKINOU, 2010. "Economic growth, innovation and collaborative research and development activities," Management & Marketing, Economic Publishing House, vol. 5(1), Spring.
    20. J.A. den Hertog, 2010. "Review of economic theories of regulation," Working Papers 10-18, Utrecht School of Economics.
    21. repec:eee:corfin:v:46:y:2017:i:c:p:51-76 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:ucp:jlawec:v:28:y:1985:i:2:p:247-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.