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
States, Environmental Groups Oppose EPA Power-Plant Emissions Repeal
Oct 1, 2026 by
CPI
US Judge Dismisses Publisher Antitrust Cases Against Google Over AI Search
Oct 1, 2026 by
CPI
Mexico Antitrust Regulator Said to Clear $450 Million Telefónica Sale
Oct 1, 2026 by
CPI
Transocean’s $5.8 Billion Valaris Deal Clears U.S. Antitrust Review
Oct 1, 2026 by
CPI
Binance Faces EU Scrutiny Over Crypto Services Without MiCA License
Oct 1, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – National Security
Sep 22, 2026 by
CPI
National Security in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: Toward a More Disciplined Framework
Sep 22, 2026 by
Rod Rosenstein & Timothy Finley
The Department of War’s M&A Review Guidance: What Companies in the Defense Industry Need to Know
Sep 22, 2026 by
Eric Stocking & Paul Ney
National Security, Resilience and the Boundaries of Merger Control
Sep 22, 2026 by
Beatriz Marques
National Security and Competition: Building Resilient Telecommunications Networks
Sep 22, 2026 by
Roslyn Layton