SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Ahlborn, C.; Evans, D. and Padilla, A. J., 2004, ‘The Antitrust Economics of Tying: A Farewell to Per Se Illegality,’ The Antitrust Bulletin, 49.
  • Ahlborn, C.; Evans, D. and Padilla, A. J., 2005, ‘The Logic and Limits of the “Exceptional Circumstances Test” in Magill and IMS Health,’ Fordham International Law Journal.
  • Beckner, C. F. and Salop, S. C., 1999, ‘Decision Theory and Antitrust Rules,’ Antitrust Law Journal, 67, pp. 4176.
  • Carlton, D., 2008, ‘Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?,’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, (forthcoming).
  • Christiansen, A. and Kerber, W., 2006, ‘Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of “Per Se Rules Vs. Rule of Reason”,’ Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2, pp. 215244.
  • EAGCP [Economic Advisory Group for Competition Policy, 2005, ‘An Economic Approach to Article 82.’Report for the DG Competition, July 2005. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/publications/ (last visited 4/21/2006).
  • Easterbrook, F. H., 1984, ‘The Limits of Antitrust’, Texas Law Review, 63, reprinted in Competition Policy International, 179, (2005).
  • Ehrlich, I. and Posner, R. A., 1974, ‘An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking,’ Journal of Legal Studies, 3, pp. 257286.
  • Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., 2004, ‘Designing Antitrust Rules for Assessing Unilateral Practices: A Neo-Chicago Approach’, CEMFI Working Paper, No. 0417.
  • Evans, D. S. and Padilla, A. J., 2005, ‘Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules,’ Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1, pp. 97122.
  • Geradin, D., 2005, ‘Limiting the scope of article 82 of the EC Treaty: What can the EU learn from the US Supreme Court's judgement in Trinko in the wake of Microsoft IMS and Deutsche Telecom?,’ Common Market Law Review.
  • Hylton, K. N. and Salinger, M., 2001, ‘Tying Law and Policy: A Decision Theoretic Approach,’ Antitrust Law Journal, 69, pp. 469526.
  • Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (Kodak), 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Circ. 1997).
  • Immordino, G. and Polo, M., 2008, ‘Judicial Errors and Innovative Activity’, mimeo.
  • IMS Health and NDC Health v. Commission Case C-418/01 (2004), ECR I-5039.
  • In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation (Xerox), 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
  • Joskow, P. L., 2002, ‘Transaction Cost Economics, Antitrust Rules, and Remedies,’ Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 18, pp. 95116.
  • Katsoulacos, Y., 2008 ‘Optimal Legal Standards for Refusals to license IP: An Welfare Based Analysis?’ Discussion Paper, Athens University of Economics & Business, see http://www.cresse.info (Publications). Journal of Competition Law and Economics.
  • Katsoulacos, Y. and Ulph, D., 2007, ‘On Optimal Legal Standards for Competition Policy When Firms Do Not Know the Welfare Implications of their Actions’, Discussion Paper 190, Athens University of Economics & Business, see http://www.cresse.info (Publications).
  • Katsoulacos, Y. and Ulph, D., 2008, ‘Optimal Antitrust Rules: The Welfare Implications of Judicial Reviews and Multi-stage Procedures’, mimeo, Athens University of Economics & Business, Athens, Grece.
  • Katsoulacos, Y. and Ulph, D., 2009a, ‘Modelling Legal Uncertainty’, Discussion Paper, available in http://www.cresse.info under Publications.
  • Katsoulacos, Y. and Ulph, D., 2009b, ‘Optimal Enforcement Structures for Competition Policy’, Discussion Paper, available in http://www.cresse.info under Publications.
  • Killick, J., 2004, ‘IMS and Microsoft Judged in the Cold Light of IMS,’ The Competition Law Review, 1.
  • Leveque, F., 2005, ‘Innovation, Leveraging and Essential Facilities: Interoperability Licensing in the EU Microsoft Case’, World Competition.
  • Magill (ITP, BBC and RTE v. Commission) Cases C241/91 and C242/91 (1995), ECR I-743.
  • Markham, J. W., 1955, ‘The Per Se Doctrine and the new Rule of Reason,’ Southern Economic Journal, 22, pp. 2231.
  • Motta, M., 2004, Competition Policy. Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
  • Ritter, C., 2005, ‘Refusal to Deal and ‘Essential Facilities’: Does Intellectual Property Require Special Deference Compared to Tangible Property?,’ World Competition, 28, pp. 281298.
  • Salinger, M., 2006, ‘Looking for the Keys under the Lamppost: Insights from Economics into Standards for Unilateral Conduct’, Comments for ABA Section of Antitrust Law.
  • Sorgard, Lars, 2009, ‘Optimal Merger Policy,’ Journal of Industrial Economics (this issue).
  • Supreme Court of USA, 2007, ‘Leegin vs. PSKS Inc.’ Decision No. 06-480, June 28th 2007.
  • Tom, W. K. and Pak, C., 2000, ‘Toward a Flexible Rule of Reason,’ Antitrust Law Journal, 68, pp. 391428.
  • Vickers, J., 2005, ‘Abuse of Market Power,’ Economic Journal, 115, pp. 244261.
  • Vickers, J., 2007a, ‘Competition Law and Economics: a mid-Atlantic Viewpoint’, The Burell Lecture of the Competition Law Association, European Competition Journal.
  • Vickers, J., 2007b, ‘Economics and the Competition Rules’, Presentation at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 12 Sept. 2007.
  • Whinston, M., 2006, Lectures in Antitrust Economics (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA).
  • Wils, W. P. J., 2006 ‘Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice’, World Competition, 29.