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
NIST Releases Draft Cybersecurity Framework for Transportation Systems
Jan 30, 2026 by
CPI
Financial Firms Embrace AI Tools and Face New Compliance Tests
Jan 30, 2026 by
CPI
Film Groups Ask State Attorneys General to Challenge Netflix’s Bid for Warner Bros.
Jan 29, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Buys Israeli AI Audio Startup Q.ai in Undisclosed Deal
Jan 29, 2026 by
CPI
Hong Kong Watchdog Targets Alleged Bid-Rigging Network in Major Building Tender Probe
Jan 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber