Friday, December 12, 2008
The Economic Approach to Antitrust Damages: Learning from Two Nobel Laureates and Three Common Mistakes
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Richard T. Rapp (NERA) provides some lessons on The Economic Approach to Antitrust Damages: Learning from Two Nobel Laureates and Three Common Mistakes.
ABSTRACT: Can it be true that the quality of damage estimation in antitrust cases is better, on average than in other branches of the law? If so, what explains that? And what accounts for the times when antitrust damages are done badly?
These are interesting questions, and in this issue of Antitrust Insights, Richard Rapp, a Special Consultant in NERA’s New York City office, considers the centrality of economics in solving antitrust problems, including damages, and the difference between economics- based expert testimony and “connoisseur” testimony. Recalling the mistakes that sometimes spoil antitrust damage calculations, Dick reminds us that the best analyses are based on theories of competitive harm that are consistent with case facts and benchmarks that are derived from realistic models of competitive pricing.