More Common Ground for International Competition Law?
Show Less

More Common Ground for International Competition Law?

Edited by Josef Drexl, Warren S. Grimes, Clifford A. Jones, Rudolph J.R. Peritz and Edward T. Swaine

In recent years, an impressive proliferation of competition laws has been seen around the world. Whilst this development may lead to greater diversity of approaches, economic arguments may promote convergence. The contributions to this book look at a number of the most topical issues by asking whether the competition world is turning more towards convergence or diversity. These issues include, among others, the changing role of economics in times of economic crises and political change, the introduction of criminal sanctions, resale-price maintenance, unilateral conduct and the application of competition law to intellectual property and state-owned enterprises.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 6: The Leegin Case: A US Antitrust Chief Event versus a Storm in a European Teacup?

Josef Bejček


Josef Bejček GENERAL REMARKS 1 I am afraid that all arguments have been made already. Now, it is merely about balancing them, accepting some of them and denying others. It is, to a great extent, a question of beliefs, trust and value-based prejudices. The Leegin case has reopened the old and, many times and in different variations, repeated question whether some judicial activism working against the legislative intent has occurred or whether a final sound step in removing a rigid per se obstacle to potentially procompetitive vertical restraints has been made. The key headline of this case might be: another lap in the balancing of legal certainty, justice and the suitability of antitrust law. The overruling of Dr. Miles1 is less dramatic than it might appear. Leegin represents only a slight erosion of the Sherman Act’s historical prohibition of RPM.2 Leegin did not hold that RPM is per se legal – at least not formally; however, the real social, psychological and factual impact may yet be another story. The undertakings may well believe that practicing RPM is not connected with a real risk of sanction so that therefore it will always pay off. It is interesting to note that according to some lawyers there has also been a decrease of interest on behalf of companies in both the creation and introduction of compliance programs in recent times.3 Therefore, there is Dr. Miles Medical Co. v John D. Parke & Sons Co., 220 US 373 (1911). See J Mitnick, J Lavelle, W...

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.