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
Florida Attorney General Launches Investigation Into OpenAI and ChatGPT
Apr 9, 2026 by
CPI
Chainalysis Sees Stablecoins Becoming Core Global Payment Infrastructure
Apr 9, 2026 by
CPI
Meta Ramps Up AI Spending with New $21 Billion Cloud Agreement
Apr 9, 2026 by
CPI
StubHub to Pay $10 Million to Settle FTC Ticket Pricing Case
Apr 9, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Seeks International Help to Obtain Samsung Evidence in DOJ Antitrust Case
Apr 9, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Competitor Collaborations
Mar 26, 2026 by
CPI
Between Scylla and Charybdis – Navigating Transatlantic Antitrust Currents
Mar 26, 2026 by
Tilman Kuhn & Niklas Brüggemann
Cartel Enforcement Moves Into the Labor Market: Trends and Implications
Mar 26, 2026 by
Andreas Kafetzopoulos & Caroline Janssens
Rethinking Buy-Side Antitrust “Group Boycotts”
Mar 26, 2026 by
Craig Falls & Brendan McGuire
Positive Collaborations: The Tools Available to Competition Authorities to Encourage Beneficial Interactions Between Competitors
Mar 26, 2026 by
Rona Bar-Isaac & Thomas Withers