A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name

Muris Tim
Additional contact information
Muris Tim: George Mason University School of Law

Review of Law & Economics, 2005, vol. 1, issue 1, 65-70

Abstract: In ignoring the facts of the Three Tenors case and the transactions costs of legal rulemaking, Professor Goldberg would unnecessarily complicate antitrust law to the detriment of consumers. Contrary to his assertions, the FTC's opinion does not favor ownership over contract. The parties could have chosen to coordinate Three Tenors products and promote a "brand," but they did not. Indeed, their contract explicitly provided otherwise. For a small class of cases - in which the parties restrain basic forms of competition such as price or advertising without a legitimate claim of consumer benefit - antitrust law avoids the costs of finding market power. In any event, the facts of the Three Tenors case provide a natural experiment revealing that the agreement the Commission proscribed in fact harmed consumers.

Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1012 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:1:y:2005:i:1:n:4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/rle/html

DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1012

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Law & Economics is currently edited by Francesco Parisi

More articles in Review of Law & Economics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().