Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Kimble and Revisiting Bad Antitrust Doctrine

The Supreme Court decision in Kimble v Marvel came out yesterday. The Court suggested that in antitrust cases, stare decisis has limits in antitrust and that we should see a change in doctrine as we have a better understanding of economics to guide us for better case law.  What are those areas most in need (based on how bad the underlying "good" case law is) of reform? I provide my top three terrible decisions previously endorsed by the Supreme Court:

1. criminal application of Robinson Patman

2. merger efficiencies are unlawful

3. tying is per se illegal

I open it up to readers to add their thoughts on bad antitrust doctrines and decisions. Please note that unless you use your real name, I am not posting your comment (this means you Dan Crane - aka, the "Wolverine Avenger").

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2015/06/kimble-and-revisiting-bad-antitrust-doctrine.html

| Permalink

Comments

criminal application of Robinson Patman, is not an antitrust doctrine, it's a criminal one.

Posted by: Tsahi Gold | Jun 23, 2015 10:55:09 PM

Shouldn't the folks at Major League Baseball be worried about the baseball exemption, especially with the San Jose case?
-- not the Wolverine Avenger, though we're still not happy about the NCAA softball result....

Posted by: Steve Cernak | Jun 26, 2015 5:06:01 AM

Post a comment