CPI 2(1)

Spring 2006, Volume 2 Number 1

In this issue:
The Antitrust Treatment of Unilateral Effects: A U.S. Perspective
  1. Herbert Hovenkamp, Apr 01, 2006

    The Law of Exclusionary Pricing

    The success of the Areeda-Turner test for predatory pricing and the U.S. Supreme Court’s adoption of demanding proof requirements in its 1993 <i>Brooke Group</i> decision have made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win conventional predatory pricing claims.

  2. Michael Salinger, Apr 01, 2006

    Learning from the Past: The Lessons of Vietnam, IBM, and Tying

    With a major set of hearings scheduled in the United States on the antitrust treatment of single-firm conduct, economists have an opportunity to provide analysis that informs policy. Yet, the opportunity will be lost if economic analysis does not provide insights into how to distinguish anticompetitive from pro-competitive behavior.

From the Editor
  1. Richard Schmalensee, Apr 01, 2006

    From the Editor: Spring 2006

    Firms with market power engage in a variety of business practices that harm their rivals. Under what circumstances should the antitrust laws condemn these practices because they will harm consumers?

The Antitrust Treatment of Unilateral Effects: An EC Perspective
  1. Jordi Gual, Anne Perrot, Michele Polo, Patrick Rey, Klaus Schmidt, Rune Stenbacka, Apr 01, 2006

    An Economic Approach to Article 82

    This report argues in favour of an economics-based approach to Article 82, in a way similar to the reform of Article 81 and merger control.

  2. Alicia Van Cauwelaert, Apr 01, 2006

    The Article 82 Review Process and Its Impact on Compulsory Licensing of IP Rights

    This paper reviews the position put forward by the Commission in relation to the concept of an exclusionary abuse, the meaning of dominance, and the use of an efficiency defense.

  3. Bill Allan, Apr 01, 2006

    A Commentary on DG Competition's Discussion Paper

    DG Competition’s discussion paper appears to signal a departure from the form-based approach articulated most strongly in <i>Michelin II</i>. However, its full significance is limited by the enunciation of a precautionary principle under which abuse is framed to capture any conduct likely to limit entry or expansion and justification is limited to the narrowest plausible extent.

  1. Bernhard Friess, Sean Greenaway, Apr 01, 2006

    Competition in EU Trading and Post-Trading Service Markets

    The structure of trading service markets is a fundamental determinant of the cost of capital for business. Competition has an important role to play in delivering efficiencies, particularly in the context of inherited fragmentation that characterizes the European Union, and to this end regulation and competition policy need to go hand in hand.

Current Cases
  1. Shaun Goodman, Apr 01, 2006

    Court of First Instance Upholds Prohibition of General Electric/Honeywell

    On December 14, 2005, the European Court of First Instance upheld the European Commission’s 2001 prohibition of a proposed merger between General Electric (GE) and Honeywell.

Vertical Restraints
  1. James Cooper, Luke Froeb, Daniel O'Brien, Michael Vita, Apr 01, 2006

    Reply to Winter's “Vertical Restraints and Antitrust Policy: A Reaction to Cooper, Froeb, O'Brien, and Vita”

    In the Autumn 2005 issue of Competition Policy International, the authors published an article on the antitrust policy implications of the theoretical and empirical literature on vertical restraints. In an accompanying comment, Professor Ralph Winter claims that the authors are advocating an enforcement standard that in any particular case would ignore case-specific evidence of the restraint’s effects.

  2. Ralph Winter, Apr 01, 2006

    Rejoinder to Cooper, Froeb, O'Brien, and Vita's Reply

    In this rejoinder, the author first responds to the discussion in Cooper, Froeb, O’Brien, and Vita’s “Reply to Winter” of a technical point, the relationship between retailer incentives and retailer margins, and then sets out their common ground and remaining differences on the broader theme of theory and evidence in vertical restraints cases.

The Classics
  1. Apr 01, 2006

    Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act

    Despite the obvious importance of the question to a statute as vaguely phrased as the Sherman Act, the federal courts in all the years since 1890 have never arrived at a definitive statement of the values or policies which control the law’s application and evolution.

  2. Douglas Ginsburg, Apr 01, 2006

    An Introduction to Bork (1966)

    The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the cornerstone of the U.S. antitrust regime, broadly prohibits contacts, combinations, and conspiracies in “restraint of trade” and makes it unlawful “to monopolize” any line of commerce.


About the CPI Journal

Competition Policy International is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that covers competition law, economics, and policy. Issues are published twice a year in the Spring and Autumn and in both print and online forms (print ISSN 1554-0189; online ISSN 1554-6853).

Past Issues


Richard Schmalensee
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.

Dennis W. Carlton
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

Keith N. Hylton
Boston University School of Law
Boston, MA, U.S.A.

A. Jorge Padilla
Brussels, Belgium

John Temple Lang
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Brussels, Belgium

David S. Evans
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. and University College London, London, U.K.

Editorial Board
Christian Ahlborn
London, U.K.

Kelyn Bacon
Brick Court Chambers
London, U.K.

Antonio Bavasso
Allen & Overy and University College London
London, U.K.

Rachel Brandenburger
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Brussels, Belgium

Ronald A. Cass
Center for the Rule of Law
Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Wayne Dale Collins
Shearman & Sterling
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Frank H. Easterbrook
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

Richard Epstein
University of Chicago Law School
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

John Fingleton
U.K. Office of Fair Trading
London, U.K.

Luke M. Froeb
Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management
Nashville, TN, U.S.A.

Rafael Garcia-Valdecasas
The Court of First Instance

Douglas H. Ginsburg
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Francis Jacobs
King's College London
London, U.K.

Valentine Korah
University College London
London, U.K.

Janet McDavid
Hogan & Hartson
Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Mario Monti
Bocconi University
Milan, Italy

Massimo Motta
European University Institute
Firenze, Italy

Timothy J. Muris
George Mason University School of Law
Arlington, VA, U.S.A.

Anne Perrot
Conseil de la Concurrence
Paris, France

Richard Posner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

Patrick Rey
IDEI and University of Toulouse
Toulouse, France

William Rooney
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Akinori Uesugi
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Tokyo, Japan

Sang-Seung Yi
Seoul National University
Seoul, Korea