Footnote:
Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments July 25, 2023 erstellt
Description:
Nearly all of this paper consists of statements from the Supreme Court and concerns how they define and identify competitive harm. They stretch from the nineteenth century to the recent past. Most of them are not particularly philosophical but are based on fact findings or allegations in a particular case. They are largely “empirical” in the sense that the court was describing actual or alleged facts. Occasionally I have inserted a comment in order to point out a particular development. Beyond that, they are given here without interpretation, other than my selection of the text to quote.In general, antitrust courts (as opposed to secondary literature in both law reviews and economics journals) have focused exclusively on price and output as the criteria for defining the goals of the antitrust laws. However, they do not all use the same language. The term “price” is used fairly consistently to describe what it is measuring, although an occasional court uses “cost” when the context obviously means “price. “Output” has several alternatives, such as “restrict production,” "limit production," “reduce sales,” “reduce the volume of trade,” or “restrain the flow” of commerce. Outcomes are divided between plaintiffs and defendants. They cover all antitrust statutes except, for the time being, the Robinson-Patman Act. The judges who wrote these opinions were not economists