Paul Seabright, Paul Seabright, Nov 11, 2009
Professor Einer Elhauge has written a paper whose title (Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory) announces its large ambition—to drive a stake through the heart of the Chicago School’s Single Monopoly Profit theory. Perhaps I watch too many scary movies, but even after watching his valiant efforts I still sense an uncanny presence, as though the creature will continue to haunt competition policy in spite of his assurances. In this note I want to explain why I think the creature may have more resilience than he has anticipated. Its resilience matters: Professor Elhauge’s arguments are used to motivate a vision of the priorities for antitrust enforcement that may be seriously misguided if his optimism is unfounded.
Featured News
CVS Health Nears FTC Settlement Over Insulin Pricing Practices
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
South Korean Food Giant CJ Cheiljedang Apologizes Again in Sugar Collusion Case
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
EU Competition Chief to Press Big Tech on AI Power During US Visit
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
Colorado Eying Possible Do-Over of Landmark AI Law
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
Poland Begins Work on Digital Tax Bill in Move Targeting Global Tech Platforms
Mar 24, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Data-Driven Competition
Mar 19, 2026 by
CPI
Data-Driven Competition: Implications For Enforcement and Merger Control
Mar 19, 2026 by
Alexandre de Corniere & Greg Taylor
From Tipping to Trustees: Why Data-Driven Markets Require Institutional Design, Not Optimization
Mar 19, 2026 by
Jens Prüfer & Paul de Bijl
Data Barriers to Entry: What We’ve Learned About Spotting Them and What We Still Don’t Know About Solutions
Mar 19, 2026 by
Bruno Carballa-Smichowski
When the Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good: Price Discrimination, Affordability, Precarity and Market Dynamism
Mar 19, 2026 by
Dan Ciuriak