Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

49,00 € / $74.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
April 2005
ISSN:
1555-5879
DOI:
10.2202/1555-5879.1012

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 49.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 74.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 176.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 237.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 212.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 285.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Editor-in-Chief: Parisi, Francesco

Ed. by Cooter, Robert D. / Gómez Pomar, Fernando / Kornhauser, Lewis A.

1 Issue per year

VolumeIssuePage

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

Tim Muris

1George Mason University School of Law

Citation Information: Review of Law & Economics. Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 65–70, ISSN (Online) 1555-5879, DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1012, April 2005

Publication History:
Published Online:
2005-04-01

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.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.