Refusals to Deal and Aftermarkets

Review of Industrial Organization

Volumn 13, Issue 1-2, 1998, Pages 131-151

  Chen, Zhiqi ^a   Ross, Thomas W ^b   Stanbury, W T ^b,c  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c INDUSTRY CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345710534     PISSN: 0889938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1007739221881     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Blair, R. D. and J. B. Herndon (1996) 'Restraints of Trade by Durable Goods Producers', Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 339-353.
2. Borenstein, S., J. K. Mackie-Mason, and J. S. Netz (1995a) 'Antitrust Policy in Aftermarkets', Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 455-482.
3. Borenstein, S., J. K. Mackie-Mason, and J. S. Netz (1995b) 'Exercising Market Power in Proprietary Aftermarkets', mimeo, University of California, Berkeley, Revised March 1995.
4. Bureau of Competition Policy (1995) Competition Act Amendments Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Bureau of Competition Policy.
5. Chen, Z. and T. W. Ross (1993) 'Refusal to Deal, Price Discrimination, and Independent Service Organizations', Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2, 953-614.
6. Chen, Z. and T. W. Ross (1994) 'Why are Extended Warranties so Expensive?' Economics Letters, 45, 253-257.
7. Chen, Z. and T. W. Ross (1996) 'Orders to Supply as Substitutes for Commitments to Aftermarkets', mimeo, University of British Columbia, revised June 1996.
8. Chen, Z. and T. W. Ross (1997) 'Refusal to Deal and Orders to Supply in Competitive Markets', mimeo, University of British Columbia, revised March 1997.
9. Economic Council of Canada (1969) Interim Report on Competition Policy. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
10. Grover, W. (1991) 'Refusals to Deal', Canadian Competition Policy Record, 12, 34-39.
11. Hay, G. (1993) 'Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full?: Reflections on the Kodak Case', Antitrust Law Journal, 62, 177-191.
12. Hutton, S. and L. Hunter (1992) 'Digital Equipment's Undertaking to Stop Tied Selling has Implications for Durable Equipment Manufacturers in Canada', Canadian Competition Policy Record, 13, 1-4.
13. Jones, C., M. Van Der Woude, and X. Lewis (1990) EEC Competition Law Handbook. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
14. Kattan, J. (1993) 'Market Power in the Presence of an Installed Base', Antitrust Law Journal, 62, 1-21.
15. Katz, M. (1987) 'The Welfare Effects of Third-Degree Price Discrimination in Intermediate Goods Market', American Economic Review, 77, 154-167.
16. Leslie, G. and S. Bodley (1993) 'The Record of Private Actions under Section 36 of the Competition Act', Canadian Competition Record, 14, 50-64.
17. McFetridge, D. G. (1998) 'Merger Enforcement under the Competition Act after Ten Years', Review of Industrial Organization, 13, 25-56.
18. Ratushny, E., chair (1996) Report of the Consultative Panel on Amendments to the Competition Act. Ottawa: Bureau of Competition Policy.
19. Roberts, R. J. (1992) Roberts on Competition/Antitrust: Canada and the United States, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths.
20. Schwartz, M. and G. Werden (1996) 'A Quality-Signalling Rationale for Aftermarket Tying', Antitrust Law Journal, 64, 387-404.
21. Shapiro, C. (1995) 'Aftermarkets and Consumer Welfare: Making Sense of Kodak', Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 483-511.
22. Shapiro, C. and D. J. Teece (1994) 'Systems Competition and Aftermarkets: An Economic Analysis of Kodak', The Antitrust Bulletin, 39, 135-162.
23. Stanbury, W. T. (1995) 'Economic Analysis of S. 75 of Competition Act: Refusal to Deal', mimeo, Study prepared for the Competition Tribunal, Ottawa.
24. Stanbury, W. T. (1998) 'Expanding Responsibilities and Declining Resources: The Strategic Responses of the Competition Bureau, 1986-1996', Review of Industrial Organization, 13, 205-241.
25. von Kalinowski, J. (1982) World Law on Competition. New York: Mathew Bender.
26. Wall Street Journal (1995) 'Jury Says Kodak Monopolized Service Market', September 19, 1995, A4.
27. Werden, G. (1987) 'The Law and Economics of the Essential Facility Doctrine', St. Louis University Law Journal, 32, 433-480.