Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475 |
Resumo: | The United States Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases how Section One 1 of the Sherman Act should apply to agreements that potentially harm competition. In recent key cases, the Court stated that the rule of reason is the default rule in antitrust. Second, per se condemnation (or some rebuttable presumption) is reserved for a limited group of practices that economics and experience show that the type of agreement under consideration is inevitably destructive of competition with little or no redeeming features. Third, reasonable people can disagree about the likely competitive effects of a particular type of agreement. Therefore, lower courts going forward should apply the rule of reason on a case by case basis to determine whether there is any likelihood of competitive harm and any likelihood of significant procompetitive benefits. However, lower courts should structure and streamline their analysis by applying one or more rules of thumb. The Supreme Court followed this basic approach in Leegin, applying the rule of reason to resale price maintenance agreements (vertical price fixing), and in Actavis, applying the rule of reason to pay-for-delay agreements involving branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. This essay explores where this strategy has been successful (Actavis) and where it has not (Leegin). I focus not on the substantive law but instead on the institutions and incentives in antitrust enforcement that ensure that the pronouncements of the law on the books by the Supreme Court get translated into the law in action in the lower courts and the real world. |
id |
RCAP_3edc7adf36f511a9100cd83b668e94a3 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7475 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust EnforcementThe United States Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases how Section One 1 of the Sherman Act should apply to agreements that potentially harm competition. In recent key cases, the Court stated that the rule of reason is the default rule in antitrust. Second, per se condemnation (or some rebuttable presumption) is reserved for a limited group of practices that economics and experience show that the type of agreement under consideration is inevitably destructive of competition with little or no redeeming features. Third, reasonable people can disagree about the likely competitive effects of a particular type of agreement. Therefore, lower courts going forward should apply the rule of reason on a case by case basis to determine whether there is any likelihood of competitive harm and any likelihood of significant procompetitive benefits. However, lower courts should structure and streamline their analysis by applying one or more rules of thumb. The Supreme Court followed this basic approach in Leegin, applying the rule of reason to resale price maintenance agreements (vertical price fixing), and in Actavis, applying the rule of reason to pay-for-delay agreements involving branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. This essay explores where this strategy has been successful (Actavis) and where it has not (Leegin). I focus not on the substantive law but instead on the institutions and incentives in antitrust enforcement that ensure that the pronouncements of the law on the books by the Supreme Court get translated into the law in action in the lower courts and the real world.Universidade Católica Editora2020-04-01T00:00:00Zjournal articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7475Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 4 No 1 (2020); 15-40Market and Competition Law Review; v. 4 n. 1 (2020); 15-402184-000810.34632/mclawreview.2020.4.1reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPporhttps://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/7475https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/7475/8404Copyright (c) 2020 Spencer Weber Wallerhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessWaller, Spencer Weber2022-09-23T15:10:27Zoai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7475Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:03:42.058782Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
title |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
spellingShingle |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement Waller, Spencer Weber |
title_short |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
title_full |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
title_fullStr |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
title_full_unstemmed |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
title_sort |
Institutions and Incentives in Antitrust Enforcement |
author |
Waller, Spencer Weber |
author_facet |
Waller, Spencer Weber |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Waller, Spencer Weber |
description |
The United States Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases how Section One 1 of the Sherman Act should apply to agreements that potentially harm competition. In recent key cases, the Court stated that the rule of reason is the default rule in antitrust. Second, per se condemnation (or some rebuttable presumption) is reserved for a limited group of practices that economics and experience show that the type of agreement under consideration is inevitably destructive of competition with little or no redeeming features. Third, reasonable people can disagree about the likely competitive effects of a particular type of agreement. Therefore, lower courts going forward should apply the rule of reason on a case by case basis to determine whether there is any likelihood of competitive harm and any likelihood of significant procompetitive benefits. However, lower courts should structure and streamline their analysis by applying one or more rules of thumb. The Supreme Court followed this basic approach in Leegin, applying the rule of reason to resale price maintenance agreements (vertical price fixing), and in Actavis, applying the rule of reason to pay-for-delay agreements involving branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. This essay explores where this strategy has been successful (Actavis) and where it has not (Leegin). I focus not on the substantive law but instead on the institutions and incentives in antitrust enforcement that ensure that the pronouncements of the law on the books by the Supreme Court get translated into the law in action in the lower courts and the real world. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-04-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
journal article info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475 oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7475 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.revistas.ucp.pt:article/7475 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/7475 https://doi.org/10.34632/mclawreview.2020.7475 https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/mclawreview/article/view/7475/8404 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Spencer Weber Waller http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Spencer Weber Waller http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Católica Editora |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Market and Competition Law Review; Vol 4 No 1 (2020); 15-40 Market and Competition Law Review; v. 4 n. 1 (2020); 15-40 2184-0008 10.34632/mclawreview.2020.4.1 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130500662558720 |