Tied and True Exclusion: Comment on Jean Tirole’s “The Analysis of Tying Cases”
The takeaway point of Tirole’s excellent primer is that tying, while potentially exclusionary, does not deserve special treatment. This commentary offers two reasons why tying should be accorded special treatment. First, unlike predatory pricing, tying offers a monopolist the ability to engage in no-cost predation. A critical component of the predatory pricing test is that the monopolist will be able to later recoup its sacrificed profits. If foreclosure can be accomplished without pricing below cost, then this makes tying a potentially more dangerous tool for anticompetitive conduct. Second, tying allows a firm to leverage its monopoly from one market to another. It can exclude an equally efficient competitor, where the rival has all of the same economies of scale and scope. To the extent that tying allows a monopolist to disrupt competition in a large number of adjacent or even unrelated markets, this vastly increases the potential harm caused by a monopoly.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
NCAA and SEC Approve Historic $2.8 Billion Settlement in Antitrust Cases
May 23, 2024 by
CPI
Apple Defends 27% Fee in Compliance with Court Order, Phil Schiller Testifies
May 23, 2024 by
CPI
French Billionaire Xavier Niel Eyes $4 Billion Millicom Buyout
May 23, 2024 by
CPI
ITA-Lufthansa Merger Faces Scrutiny from European Commission
May 23, 2024 by
CPI
Google Explores Major Acquisition of HubSpot to Bolster Cloud
May 23, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI