Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Economics of Antitrust-IP
- Part II Institutional Design: Country Overviews
- Part III Monopolization
- 10 Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP
- 11 Monopoly Power and Intellectual Property
- 12 Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights
- 13 Patent Holdups
- 14 Walker Process and Sham Litigation
- 15 Does Antitrust Have a Role to Play in Regulating Big Data?
- Part IV Competitor Collaboration
- Part V Vertical Relations
- Part VI Mergers in High Technology
- Index
- References
10 - Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP
from Part III - Monopolization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Economics of Antitrust-IP
- Part II Institutional Design: Country Overviews
- Part III Monopolization
- 10 Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP
- 11 Monopoly Power and Intellectual Property
- 12 Exploitative Abuses of Intellectual Property Rights
- 13 Patent Holdups
- 14 Walker Process and Sham Litigation
- 15 Does Antitrust Have a Role to Play in Regulating Big Data?
- Part IV Competitor Collaboration
- Part V Vertical Relations
- Part VI Mergers in High Technology
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Anderson, Simon P. et al. 2012. “Push-Me Pull-You: Comparative Advertising in the OTC Analgesics Industry.” Unpublished manuscript, last updated June 18, 2015. doi: 10.2139/2047106.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E. and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2006. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, 3rd edn. Vols. 2B, 3A New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Ching, Andrew T. 2010. Consumer Learning and Heterogeneity: Dynamics of Demand for Prescription Drugs after Patent Expiration. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 619–38.Google Scholar
Coate, Malcolm B. and Simons, Joseph J.. 2012. In Defense of Market Definition. The Antitrust Bulletin, 57, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datamonitor. 2011. Industry Profile: Bleach in the United States. 2 Ref. No. 0072–0013.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2012. Markets in IP & Antitrust. Georgetown Law Journal, 100, 2133–58.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark, Lemley, Mark, and Leslie, Christopher. 2010. IP and Antitrust, 2nd edn. Vol. 1. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaplow, Louis. 2011. “Market Share Thresholds: On the Conflation of Empirical Assessments and Legal Policy Judgments.” Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 692. doi: 10.2139/1873431.Google Scholar
Leslie, Christopher R. 2004. Trust, Distrust, and Antitrust, Texas Law Review, 82, 515–680.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, Martin. 2008. Buyology: Truth and Lies about Why We Buy. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Markovits, Richard S. 1978. Predicting the Competitive Impact of Horizontal Mergers in a Monopolistically Competitive World: A Non-Market-Oriented Proposal and Critique of the Market Definition-Market Share-Market Concentration Approach. Texas Law Review, 56, 587–731.Google Scholar
Reeves, Amanda P. and Stucke, Maurice E.. 2011. Behavioral Antitrust. Indiana Law Journal, 86, 1527–86.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Daniel A. 2011. Shutting the Back Door: Using American Needle to Cure the Problem of Improper Market Definition. Michigan Law Review, 110, 295–318.Google Scholar
U.S. DOJ and FTC (United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission). 1992. Horizontal Merger Guidelines. 57 Fed. Reg. 41,552 (Sept. 10).Google Scholar
U.S. DOJ and FTC (United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission). 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines.Google Scholar