FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W198701636> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W198701636 abstract "Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing has had theoretical importance for antitrust law far out of proportion to the trivial dispute it resolved. It has divided adherents of the Chicago and Post-Chicago Schools, providing a useful vehicle for considering the proper goals of antitrust. And it has gained still more significance by the Supreme Court's recent characterization of it in Verizon Communications v. Trinko as at or near the outer boundary of Section 2 liability. The Court's metaphor suggests that antitrust governs a limited domain within a larger economy regulated by a variety of other laws, from the common law standards of property and contract to the much more intrusive requirements of the Telecommunications Act. In this image, Aspen recognized a duty to cooperate that was at the margin of antitrust's reach, while the Trinko plaintiffs sought recognition of a duty beyond it. Both cases involved a monopolist's refusal to deal with a smaller rival. Aspen, however, held that an operator of skiing facilities monopolized by refusing to continue to assist a smaller rival in offering skiers easy access to their combined areas, while Trinko held that a local telephone carrier did not monopolize by failing to provide smaller rival carriers with elements of its network. In evaluating the allegations in Trinko, the Court repeatedly referred to the facts and reasoning of Aspen.In this essay, we attempt to clarify monopolization standards by examining why the Court considered the refusal to deal in Aspen to be within the boundaries of Section 2 liability and the one in Trinko beyond them. Attempting to clarify monopolization standards by resort to Aspen, and the Trinko Court's characterization of it, is a daunting task, however. As we show below, the Aspen Court failed to recognize a possible procompetitive explanation of the defendant's conduct, and failed to identify evidence sufficient to support a plausible anticompetitive explanation. Trinko was only partly successful in clearing up the confusion. The Court did reaffirm the principle, stated in Aspen, that even monopolists have no general duty to deal with their competitors, and it usefully offered three reasons for the right to refuse to deal. But the Trinko Court's explanation of why Aspen merited an exception to the general rule betrayed a misunderstanding of Aspen, which itself was ill-onsidered.We try to restore a measure of clarity by identifying the real issues in Aspen, and the importance of those issues in defining the limits of a monopolist's right to refuse to deal. We begin by discussing the factors relevant to the characterization of allegedly monopolistic conduct - its effects on consumers and competitors, and its likely motivation - and examining the rationale for recognizing the right of a monopolist to refuse to deal. We then offer a model drawn from the facts of Aspen that illustrates the likely, or at least possible, effects of the termination of the all-Aspen ski ticket. We reexamine the facts of Aspen in light of the model. We suggest that the most plausible interpretation of the evidence is that, although the joint pass benefited consumers, it had become unprofitable to Ski Co., so long as the profits were distributed according to skiers' usage of the facilities. Consequently, one should evaluate Ski Co.'s termination of the pass and subsequent refusals to sell in the context of a bargaining impasse. Finally, we argue that our reconstruction of the issues in Aspen casts doubt on Trinko's extensive reliance on the case to define the boundary of Section 2 liability." @default.
• W198701636 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W198701636 creator A5025427388 @default.
• W198701636 creator A5052867122 @default.
• W198701636 date "2005-08-09" @default.
• W198701636 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W198701636 title "Bargaining and Monopolization: In Search of the 'Boundary of Section 2 Liability' between Aspen and Trinko" @default.
• W198701636 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W198701636 type Work @default.
• W198701636 sameAs 198701636 @default.
• W198701636 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W198701636 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W198701636 hasAuthorship W198701636A5025427388 @default.
• W198701636 hasAuthorship W198701636A5052867122 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C2780757686 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C2781127519 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C774472 @default.
• W198701636 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C119857082 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C144133560 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C162324750 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C17744445 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C190253527 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C199539241 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C2777834853 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C2778272461 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C2779103253 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C2780757686 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C2781127519 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C34447519 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C41008148 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C774472 @default.
• W198701636 hasConceptScore W198701636C97460637 @default.
• W198701636 hasLocation W1987016361 @default.
• W198701636 hasOpenAccess W198701636 @default.
• W198701636 hasPrimaryLocation W1987016361 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W1535290551 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W1586915214 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W201985074 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2153367806 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2299202939 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2337344539 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2643387273 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W271484711 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W27772140 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W282446292 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2964905827 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W2998464908 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3006677876 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3036589219 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W304913284 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3122535170 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3123514042 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3125535455 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W3153320193 @default.
• W198701636 hasRelatedWork W167374382 @default.
• W198701636 isParatext "false" @default.
• W198701636 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W198701636 magId "198701636" @default.
• W198701636 workType "article" @default.