Richard Gilbert, Apr 19, 2007
Several antitrust cases have involved allegations of anticompetitive innovation or product design and some plaintiffs and antitrust scholars have argued that investment in research and development that excludes competition can have predatory effects similar to predatory pricing. This article analyzes several tests for predatory innovation, including the rule of reason based on total and consumer welfare and profit sacrifice tests. All of these tests are likely to produce false positives that chill incentives for beneficial investments in research and development. Most courts that have considered allegations of anticompetitive innovation, including the appellate court in U.S. v. Microsoft, have concluded that innovation is not anticompetitive if it has plausible efficiencies. This is close to a test of whether innovation is a sham. While a sham test may fail to identify innovations that harm competition, that risk is acceptable given the high cost of penalizing beneficial innovation.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Former Sales Pro Admits to Bid Rigging Targeting US Schools
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Macron Advocates EU Financial Integration Amid Push for Global Competitiveness
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Microsoft Faces EU Antitrust Charges Over Teams Software
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Complaint Filed Against Edwards Lifesciences by Indian Rival Meril
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Watchdog Partners with AliExpress and Temu to Address Safety Concerns
May 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI