Innovation Markets and Competition Analysis
Show Less

Innovation Markets and Competition Analysis

EU Competition Law and US Antitrust Law

Marcus Glader

This book examines the legal standards – and their underlying economic rationale – for the protection of competition in the innovation process, in both European competition law and American antitrust law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: Policy developments

Marcus Glader


3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter will describe the general development of a dynamic view of antitrust law analysis in the US and the EU. Significant early antitrust case law is presented where courts have been active in emphasizing, and possibly assessing, future market developments. Sometimes the terms under which new products and processes are created and the availability to market participants of new technologies had to be considered, since this seriously affects the level and nature of competition. The case law presented gives only a sketchy outline of the area under investigation: competition in the innovation process. Regulations and policy documents are next discussed; these further elaborate on market definition issues with regard to R&D and technology dimensions of competition law analysis. Through such instruments, analytical frameworks have evolved in which innovation constitutes a central element for antitrust analysis. The emphasis throughout is on the innovation market concept, but product and technology market issues are also covered. 3.2 3.2.1 DYNAMIC ANTITRUST ASSESSMENT Present and Future Market Conditions Formally, US antitrust policy has never been confined to merely assessing the instantaneous effects of a transaction on current markets. In FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co.,1 the Supreme Court held that the standard of Section 7 of the Clayton Act – testing whether a merger might substantially lessen competition – requires ‘a prediction of the merger’s impact on competition, present and future’.2 Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568 (1967). The Supreme Court furthermore stated: ‘Section 7 of the Clayton Act...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.