Paul Seabright, Paul Seabright, Nov 11, 2009
Professor Einer Elhauge has written a paper whose title (Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory) announces its large ambition—to drive a stake through the heart of the Chicago School’s Single Monopoly Profit theory. Perhaps I watch too many scary movies, but even after watching his valiant efforts I still sense an uncanny presence, as though the creature will continue to haunt competition policy in spite of his assurances. In this note I want to explain why I think the creature may have more resilience than he has anticipated. Its resilience matters: Professor Elhauge’s arguments are used to motivate a vision of the priorities for antitrust enforcement that may be seriously misguided if his optimism is unfounded.
Featured News
Bipartisan Senators Reintroduce Bill to Curb Use of Non-Competes
Jun 12, 2025 by
CPI
Senate Bill Would Shield AI Developers From Civil Liability In Certain Uses of Their Tools
Jun 12, 2025 by
CPI
FTC Considers Political Content Clause in Omnicom-Interpublic Merger Review
Jun 12, 2025 by
CPI
Female Athletes Challenge NCAA $2.7 Billion Settlement, Citing Title IX Concerns
Jun 12, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Rules Amazon Must Face Audiobook Antitrust Suit from Independent Authors
Jun 12, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Industrial Policy
May 21, 2025 by
CPI
Industrial Strategy and the Role of Competition – Taking a Business Lens
May 21, 2025 by
Marcus Bokkerink
Industrial Policy, Antitrust, and Economic Growth: Some Observations
May 21, 2025 by
David S. Evans
Bolder by Design: Crafting Pro-Competitive Industrial Policies For Complex Challenges
May 21, 2025 by
Antonio Capobianco & Beatriz Marques
Competition-Friendly Industrial Policy
May 21, 2025 by
Philippe Aghion, Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros