George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series
George Mason University Working Paper Series
A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name...
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 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 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.
Subject Area
Law and Economics
Recommended Citation
Timothy J. Muris,
"A Response to Professor Goldberg: An Anticompetitive Restraint by Any Other Name..."
(March 2005).
George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series.
George Mason University Working Paper Series.
Working Paper 20.
http://law.bepress.com/gmulwps/gmule/art20
No readers' reactions have been posted for this article. To submit one, copy the URL for this article (http://law.bepress.com/gmulwps/gmule/art20) and click here.