Antitrust and Innovation: Welcoming and Protecting Disruption

Antitrust and Innovation: Welcoming and Protecting Disruption

The goal of antitrust policy is to protect and promote a vigorous competitive process. Effective rivalry spurs firms to introduce new and innovative products, as they seek to capture profitable sales from their competitors and to protect their existing sales from future challengers. In this fundamental way, competition promotes innovation. We apply this basic insight to the antitrust treatment of horizontal mergers and of exclusionary conduct by dominant firms. A merger between rivals internalizes business-stealing effects arising from their parallel innovation efforts and thus tends to depress innovation incentives. Merger-specific synergies, such as the internalization of involuntary spillovers or an increase in the productivity of R&D, may offset the adverse effect of a merger on innovation. We describe the possible effects of a merger on innovation by developing a taxonomy of cases, with reference to recent U.S. and E.U. examples. A dominant firm may engage in exclusionary conduct to eliminate the threat from disruptive firms. This suppresses innovation by foreclosing disruptive rivals and by reducing the pressure to innovative on the incumbent. We apply this broad principle to possible exclusionary strategies by dominant firms.

Author's Preface PART I: THE HISTORICAL APPROACH 1. Historical Background 1914-48 2. The Common Law Background PART 2: THE MONOPOLIES COMMISSION 3. The Structure and Constitution of the Monopolies Commission 4. The Scope and Authority of the Monopolies Commission 5. The Investigating Procedure of the Monopolies Commission PART 3: TRADE ASSOCIATION INQUIRIES 6. The Monopolies Commission and Price Agreements 7. Trade Associations and the Competitive Process 8. Trade Association Agreements and Barriers to Inter-Member Competition 9. Trade Association Agreements and Barriers to Independent Competition 10. The Trade Association and Public Policy PART 4: THE DOMINANT FIRM 11. The Dominant Firm and Oligopoly 12. The Dominant Firm and the Competitive Process 13. The Dominant Firm and Barriers to Independent Competition 14. Dominant Firm Activities and the Public Interest 15. The Dominant Firm and Public Policy PART 5: STATISTICAL MEASURES OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 16. Unit Production Costs and Prices 17. The Calculation of Rate of Return on Capital as a Public Interest Indicator 18. Rate of Return on Capital and the Public Interest PART 6: GOVERNMENT ACTION: ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES 19. The Implementation of Monopolies Commission Recommendations 20. Economic Consequences of Monopolies Commission Reports PART 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21. The Monopolies Commission and Future Developments APPENDICES 1. Members of the Monopolies Commission 1949-64 2. A Case Study of the Procedure of Inquiry CLASSIFIED BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

Intel, Leveraging Rebates and the Goals of Article 102 TFEU

This paper reviews the 2014 Intel judgment of the General Court of the EU in relation to exclusivity rebates given by dominant firms. It distinguishes between the positive issue – ie the legal standard currently applicable to the assessment of dominant firms' rebates – and the prospective discussion – ie the legal standard that should optimally apply to dominant firms rebates. On the positive debate, the paper argues that Intel affirms a modified per se prohibition rule against dominant firms' exclusivity rebates. The scope of this standard is confined to leveraging rebates, and does not cover non-leveraging rebates, which must be analysed under the rule of reason. The paper also draws a distinction between exclusivity obligations and exclusivity options for which agencies and courts should undertake more economic analysis. On the prospective debate, the paper starts from the assumption made by several scholars that Intel endorses a non-welfarist view of the goals of Article 102 TFEU. With this background, it questions which non-welfarist alternative goal can be ascribed to Article 102 TFEU. The paper finds that none of the three classic non-welfarist goals (ie competitive process, consumer choice and raising rivals' costs) can be acclimated in modern EU competition law.

A Comparative Study of United States and European Union Approaches to Vertical Policy

Will an industry with no antitrust policy converge to monopoly, competition, or somewhere in between? We analyze this question using a dynamic dominant firm model with rational agents, endogenous mergers, and constant returns to scale production. We find that perfect competition and monopoly are always steady states of this model, and that there may be other steady states with a dominant firm and a fringe co-existing. Mergers are likely only when supply is inelastic or demand is elastic, suggesting that the ability of a dominant firm to raise price, through monopolization is limited. Additionally, as the discount factor increases, it becomes harder to monopolize the industry, because the dominant firm cannot commit to not raising prices in the future.

Competition law represents a foundational pillar of modern market economies, designed to safeguard the competitive process against distortions arising from concentrated economic power. 1 At its core, competition law embodies the understanding that markets function optimally when competition remains vigorous and unfettered by artificial constraints. 2 The fundamental premise rests on Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory, whereby competitive markets naturally allocate resources efficiently without central coordination. 3 This theoretical underpinning justifies governmental intervention when market structures or business conduct threaten to undermine the competitive process itself.The conceptual foundations of competition law have evolved from traditional economic liberalism to incorporate more nuanced approaches that recognize market imperfections and information asymmetries. 4 Modern competition law balances concerns regarding allocative efficiency, productive efficiency, and dynamic efficiency while recognizing the inherent tensions between these objectives. 5 The theoretical discourse surrounding competition law has significantly shaped its practical implementation in jurisdictions worldwide, including India and the United States.The economic rationale for regulating market dominance stems from the recognition that excessive market power can lead to suboptimal economic outcomes.When firms attain dominance, they acquire the ability to profitably increase prices above competitive levels, reduce output, diminish innovation, or otherwise harm consumers without being constrained by competitive forces.This market failure justifies targeted regulatory intervention to preserve the competitive process and protect consumer welfare.Dominance regulation represents a nuanced area of competition policy, as dominance itself is not prohibited under either Indian or U.S. competition law. 6 Rather, both jurisdictions focus on abusive conduct by dominant firms that distorts competition.The economic justificationfor this approach acknowledges that market power may result from superior efficiency, innovation, or business acumen-qualities that competition policy should encourage rather than penalize.However, when dominant firms leverage their market position to exclude competitors or exploit consumers through means unrelated to competition on the merits, regulatory intervention becomes economically justified. 7 The economic consequences of unchecked dominance abuse include allocative inefficiencies (deadweight losses), reduced innovation incentives, and wealth transfers from consumers to producers. 8These detrimental effects provide the economic foundation for legal frameworks that scrutinize dominant firm behavior while carefully distinguishing between legitimate competitive conduct and anticompetitive abuse. II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF COMPETITION REGULATION GLOBALLYThe historical evolution of competition regulation reflects broader economic and political developments across jurisdictions.Modern competition law traces its origins to the late nineteenth century United States, where the Sherman Act of 1890 emerged as a legislative response to public concern over the power of industrial trusts and monopolies.This pioneering legislation established the foundation for subsequent antitrust developments, including the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which expanded and refined the U.S. competition framework.

The dominant firm is an unsolved puzzle of industrial organization. A sizable number of dominant firms in large industries manage to retain high market shares and high rates of profit, despite the absence of large technical economies of scale. This has baffled scientific analysis, and it has put antitrust and regulatory policies in awkward positions. It has sown discord among us, setting ‘Chicagoans’ against others in the field.

This paper investigates the evolution of competition policy decisions in the US and, particularly, in the EU, concerning mandatory access to an essential facility held by a dominant firm. Based on some recent and controversial EU antitrust decisions, we outline a comprehensive test for identifying an essential facility and consequently imposing a mandatory access obligation on dominant firms.

peer reviewed

This article discusses the concept of disruptive innovation and its implications for competition policy. Given “disruption” is not a formal term of art in the economic literature we provide a working definition which focuses on those technologies which both have drastic implications for existing business models and leverage new technologies rather than building upon existing investments. We then discuss implications for antitrust policy of such innovations. First, we discuss the challenges facing policy makers when policing mergers between dominant firms and smaller players and the evidence that might be used to distinguish between transactions harnessing pro-competitive synergies and those involving anticompetitive purchase of “tomorrow’s disruptor”. Second, we discuss antitrust enforcement and explain why we think it is unnecessarily constrained by a desire to fit within existing paradigms based on tying and leveraging; and why some standard presumptions in conduct cases (e.g. that dominant firms must necessarily be operating “at scale” when applying tests for predation) need to be revisited when looking at disrupted industries.

This paper defines various concepts of efficiency and then demonstrates how conservative economic approaches have led to wrong results in several important cases. It asks: What is efficiency? Can antitrust law produce efficiency, and how does it try to do so? It observes that one way antitrust pursues efficiency is by choosing a proxy; notably, either trust in the dynamic of the competition process or trust in (even) the dominant firm. By case examples, it shows the effect of conservative economics in choosing as the proxy trust in the dominant firm. It argues that this phenomenon has produced the Efficiency Paradox: In the name of efficiency, conservative theories of antitrust cut off the most promising paths to efficiency. It is suggested that we can eliminate the Efficiency Paradox by readjusting the pendulum to give more regard to the incentives of mavericks and challengers and less regard to the freedom and autonomy of dominant firms.

Exploiting rivals' strengths

It is the standard view in the United States that U.S. antitrust law does not reach acts of exploitation by a monopolist, particularly monopoly pricing (“rent extraction”). Even more so for intellectual property, where U.S. courts have emphasized the right of an intellectual property right holder to raise prices and exploit its rights to the fullest, constrained only by market demand. Competition law in the rest of the world appears to be otherwise, however, with many countries generally condemning excessive high prices by dominant firms, even if often reluctant to invoke such provisions in practice.Despite apparent differences in legal approaches, current enforcement practice worldwide with regard to price-raising exploitation of intellectual property rights by monopolists shows a uniform willingness to condemn such conduct as anticompetitive. This paper describes this concern for exploitation, focusing on competition law enforcement in the United States, China, Europe, Japan, and Korea in three substantive areas: patents subject to FRAND licensing obligations, disclosure requirements imposed on patent holders with monopoly power to prevent them from exploiting licensees or potential licensees, and post-expiration royalties.This paper argues that this concern for exploitative behavior is consistent with sound competition policy. Preventing the undue exploitation of intellectual property rights is an important aspect of economizing on the reward we give to incentivize innovation. Antitrust has traditionally favored placing some limits on intellectual property rights and placing greater reliance on the incentives for innovation that competitive markets can provide.