A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name . . .
-
Tim Muris
In ignoring the facts of the Three Tenors case and the transactions costs of legal rulemaking, Professor Goldberg would unnecessarily complicate antitrust law to the detriment of consumers. Contrary to his assertions, the FTC’s opinion does not favor ownership over contract. The parties could have chosen to coordinate Three Tenors products and promote a “brand,” but they did not. Indeed, their contract explicitly provided otherwise. For a small class of cases – in which the parties restrain basic forms of competition such as price or advertising without a legitimate claim of consumer benefit – antitrust law avoids the costs of finding market power. In any event, the facts of the Three Tenors case provide a natural experiment revealing that the agreement the Commission proscribed in fact harmed consumers.
©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- Brandeis and Holmes, Business and Economics, Then and Now
- Legal Durability
- Featuring the Three Tenors in La Triviata
- A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name . . .
- A Simple Theory of Increasing Penalties for Repeat Offenders
- The Confused U.S. Framework for Foreign-Bank Insolvency: An Open Research Agenda
- Cross-Listing and Regulatory Competition
- Completing Contracts Ex Post: How Car Manufacturers Manage Car Dealers
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- Brandeis and Holmes, Business and Economics, Then and Now
- Legal Durability
- Featuring the Three Tenors in La Triviata
- A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name . . .
- A Simple Theory of Increasing Penalties for Repeat Offenders
- The Confused U.S. Framework for Foreign-Bank Insolvency: An Open Research Agenda
- Cross-Listing and Regulatory Competition
- Completing Contracts Ex Post: How Car Manufacturers Manage Car Dealers
