Sunday, April 20, 2008
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Maurice Stucke of the University of Tennessee Law School asks perhaps the fundamental policy question of antitrust, Should the Government Prosecute Monopolies? Given Maurice's post-Chicago leanings, the answer is clear--yes!
ABSTRACT: In the past few years, courts and the Department of Justice have cited approvingly the Court's dicta in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP. This article analyzes why the economic thinking in Trinko is wrong, and how the Court ignores its precedent involving the Sherman Act's concerns of monopolies' political, social and ethical implications. It responds to the Court's claim that cartel behavior is easier to identify and remedy than monopolistic behavior and proposes an improvement to the Court's current rule of reason standard to reduce the risk of false positives, while enabling the antitrust agencies and courts to remedy more quickly certain monopolistic conduct.