TYING AND BUNDLED DISCOUNTS: AN EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST LIABILITY TESTS

D. Sibley, M. D. Sibley, M. Williams
{"title":"TYING AND BUNDLED DISCOUNTS: AN EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST LIABILITY TESTS","authors":"D. Sibley, M. D. Sibley, M. Williams","doi":"10.15779/Z385W11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Courts have struggled with determining when bundled discounts constitute unlawfully anticompetitive behavior. The current circuit split reflects an absence of consensus. This lack of legal guidance creates uncertainty in the market, with firms being given inconsistent – and sometimes contradictory standards on how to avoid antitrust liability. For the most part, we consider a standard paradigm for analyzing bundled discounts. Suppose that there are two firms. Firm 1 produces a monopoly product, A, and also another product, B, which competes with another version of B produced by Firm 2. The concern is the extent to which the price paid for A is linked to the purchase of B from Firm 1: has the bundling resulted in anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act? We analyze three main approaches: the discount attribution test, the Elhauge proposal, and the Profit Sacrifice Test. Each of these has received much recent discussion, but very little of the debate takes into account the effects of bundled discounts where all firms are setting prices that maximize profits, i.e. in equilibrium. . With homogeneous goods in the B market, the attribution test should be failed is all firms are maximizing profits. The Elhauge proposal makes sense with equilibrium prices in some types of markets, but not others. The profit sacrifice test turns out to be vacuous when applied to bundled discounts, since in equilibrium there turns out to be no profit sacrifice. i. We explore related issues with tying arrangements. * The John Michael Stuart Centennial Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. (Economics) Yale University; B.A. (Economics) Stanford University. The author thanks Keith Hylton, Padmanbhan Srinagesh, David Radlauer, Michael Doane and, especially, Einer Elhauge and Patrick Greenlee for helpful discussions on the issues herein and, most particularly, his wife for assistance and patience over many years. ** Competition Economics, LLC. B.S.E.E. Tufts University. *** Professor & Chair, Department of Business Law, California State University, Northridge. J.D., Boston University; B.A., University of California.","PeriodicalId":326069,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385W11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Courts have struggled with determining when bundled discounts constitute unlawfully anticompetitive behavior. The current circuit split reflects an absence of consensus. This lack of legal guidance creates uncertainty in the market, with firms being given inconsistent – and sometimes contradictory standards on how to avoid antitrust liability. For the most part, we consider a standard paradigm for analyzing bundled discounts. Suppose that there are two firms. Firm 1 produces a monopoly product, A, and also another product, B, which competes with another version of B produced by Firm 2. The concern is the extent to which the price paid for A is linked to the purchase of B from Firm 1: has the bundling resulted in anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act? We analyze three main approaches: the discount attribution test, the Elhauge proposal, and the Profit Sacrifice Test. Each of these has received much recent discussion, but very little of the debate takes into account the effects of bundled discounts where all firms are setting prices that maximize profits, i.e. in equilibrium. . With homogeneous goods in the B market, the attribution test should be failed is all firms are maximizing profits. The Elhauge proposal makes sense with equilibrium prices in some types of markets, but not others. The profit sacrifice test turns out to be vacuous when applied to bundled discounts, since in equilibrium there turns out to be no profit sacrifice. i. We explore related issues with tying arrangements. * The John Michael Stuart Centennial Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. (Economics) Yale University; B.A. (Economics) Stanford University. The author thanks Keith Hylton, Padmanbhan Srinagesh, David Radlauer, Michael Doane and, especially, Einer Elhauge and Patrick Greenlee for helpful discussions on the issues herein and, most particularly, his wife for assistance and patience over many years. ** Competition Economics, LLC. B.S.E.E. Tufts University. *** Professor & Chair, Department of Business Law, California State University, Northridge. J.D., Boston University; B.A., University of California.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
捆绑和捆绑折扣:反垄断责任测试的均衡分析
法院一直在努力确定捆绑折扣何时构成非法反竞争行为。目前巡回法院的分歧反映出缺乏共识。缺乏法律指导给市场带来了不确定性,在如何避免反垄断责任方面,企业得到的标准不一致,有时甚至是相互矛盾的。在大多数情况下,我们考虑分析捆绑折扣的标准范例。假设有两家公司。公司1生产垄断产品a,同时也生产另一种产品B,与公司2生产的另一种产品B竞争。关注的是A的支付价格与从公司1购买B的关联程度:捆绑是否导致了违反《谢尔曼法》第2条的反竞争行为?我们分析了三种主要的方法:折扣归因测试、Elhauge建议和利润牺牲测试。这些问题最近都得到了很多讨论,但很少有人考虑到捆绑折扣的影响,因为所有公司都在设定利润最大化的价格,即均衡。对于B市场的同质商品,如果所有企业都在追求利润最大化,则归因检验不成立。埃尔豪格的提议在某些类型的市场中对均衡价格有意义,但在其他类型的市场中则不然。当将利润牺牲测试应用于捆绑折扣时,结果证明是空洞的,因为在均衡状态下,结果证明没有利润牺牲。(一)我们将探讨绑扎安排的相关问题。德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校约翰·迈克尔·斯图尔特经济学百年教授。耶鲁大学经济学博士;斯坦福大学经济学学士学位。作者感谢Keith Hylton、Padmanbhan Srinagesh、David Radlauer、Michael Doane,尤其是Einer Elhauge和Patrick Greenlee,感谢他们对本书中的问题进行了有益的讨论,尤其要感谢他的妻子多年来的帮助和耐心。**竞争经济学,有限责任公司,塔夫茨大学。***加州州立大学北岭分校商法系教授兼系主任。波士顿大学法学博士;加州大学文学学士。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Social Responsibility of Business Is Not Social Responsibility: Assume That There Are No Angels and Allow the Free Market's Touch of Heaven Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives Effectively Discharging Fiduciary Duties in IP-Rich M&A Transactions The Enigma of Hostile Takeovers in Japan: Bidder Beware National Security Review in Foreign Investments: A Comparative and Critical Assessment on China and U.S. Laws and Practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1