Abstract

In two recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities gave very different answers to the question of how much involvement the competition authorities should have in the telecom industry. This paper takes those cases as a starting point to examine their legal reasoning, focusing on the question of whether those results were required by the substantive competition laws, and whether they make sense from the point of view of economic science. Subsequently, an attempt is made to model the costs and benefits of having more than one government agency supervise the same industry. The results show that the rulings of each court are consistent with the well known trends in competition law, resulting in a more interventionist European approach contrasted with an American result that rules out certain theories of liability that are, economically speaking, undoubtedly meritorious. The model that is proposed to consider the uncertainties involved in regulating a high-innovation industry offers a framework for thinking about such matters without – for now – allowing specific recommendations for either Europe or the US.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.