Herbert Hovenkamp, Dec 20, 2012
Notwithstanding hundreds of court decisions and scholarly articles, tying arrangements remain enigmatic. Conclusions that go to either extreme, per se legality or per se illegality, invariably make simplifying assumptions that frequently do not obtain. For example, by ignoring double marginalization or tying product price cuts it becomes very easy to prove that a wide-range of ties are anticompetitive. At the other extreme, by ignoring foreclosure possibilities one can readily conclude that ties are invariably benign. Even when one considers consumer welfare alone, the great majority of ties very likely are competitively benign, with a few exceptions that involve realistic threats of anticompetitive foreclosure.
Featured News
EU Moves to Give Dominant Companies More Flexibility Under Antitrust Rules
Sep 3, 2026 by
CPI
US Shale Producers Must Face Oil Price-Fixing Claims, Judge Rules
Sep 3, 2026 by
CPI
Nvidia to Buy Hugging Face for $12.9 Billion in Open-AI Push
Sep 3, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Tracking Curbs Come Under Fire in $2.7 Billion UK Case
Sep 3, 2026 by
CPI
Veterinary Accreditor Defeats Antitrust Challenge From Tennessee University
Sep 3, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – State Attorneys General
Aug 27, 2026 by
CPI
CPI Talks… with Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee
Aug 27, 2026 by
Jonathan Skrmetti
What the Live Nation Jury Instructions Tell Us About California’s Unfair Competition Law
Aug 27, 2026 by
Henry Hauser, Brent Nakamura, Ashley Kaplan, Brian Wang & Cari Jeffries
From Backroom Deals to Public Scrutiny: The Tunney Act’s Past, Present, and Future
Aug 27, 2026 by
Christina M. Black & Ashley A. Locke
Understanding the Fragility of Economic Concentration Through the Principles of Ecology
Aug 27, 2026 by
Alexandra Spring