When is static analysis a sufficient proxy for dynamic considerations? reconsidering antitrust and innovation

Innovation Policy and the Economy

Volumn 11, Issue , 2011, Pages 55-78

  Gans, Joshua S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650840875     PISSN: 15313468     EISSN: 15372618     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1086/655818     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Arrow, K. J. 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention." In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, 609-25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Brennan, T. J. 2007. "Should Innovation Rationalize Supra-competitive Prices? ASkeptical Speculation." In The Pros and Cons of High Prices, ed. A. Fredenberg, 88-127. Stockholm: Konkurrensverket/Swedish Competition Authority.
3. Carlton, D., J. S. Gans, and M. Waldman. 2010. "Why Tie a Product Consumers Do Not Use?" American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 2, no. 3:85-105.
4. Department of Justice. 2010. "Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Proposed." Manuscript, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
5. Evans, D. S., and R. Schmalensee. 2002. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries." Innovation Policy and the Economy 2:1-49.
6. Fisher, F. M. 2000. "The IBM and Microsoft Cases: What's the Difference?" American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90, no. 2:180-83.
7. Gans, J. S. 2009. "Negotiating for the Market." Manuscript, University of Melbourne.
8. 2010. "Antitrust and Innovation under Cooperative Commercialisation." Manuscript, University of Melbourne.
9. Gans, J. S., and S. Stern. 2000. "Incumbency and R and D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction." Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9, no. 4:485-511.
10. -2003. "The Product Market and the 'Market for Ideas': Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs." Research Policy 32, no. 2:333-50.
11. Gilbert, R. 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition Innovation Debate?" Innovation Policy and the Economy 6:159-215.
12. 2007. "Holding Innovation to an Antitrust Standard." Competition Policy International 3:47-77.
13. Gilbert, R., and D. Newbery. 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly." American Economic Review 72, no. 3:514-26.
14. Manne, G., and J. Wright. 2009. "Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust." Law and Economics Research Paper no. 09-54, George Mason University. Legal Studies Research Paper no. 2009-26, Lewis and Clark Law School. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1490849.
15. Ordover, J., and R. Willig. 1981. "An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation." Yale Law Journal 9:8-53.
16. Rasmussen, E. 1988. "Entry for Buyout." Journal of Industrial Economics 36, no. 3: 281-99.
17. Reinganum, J. F. 1989. "On the Timing of Innovation." In Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 1, ed. R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, 849-908. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18. Segal, I., and M. Whinston. 2007. "Antitrust in Innovative Industries." American Economic Review 97, no. 5:1703-30.
19. Teece, D. J. 1987. "Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy." In The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, ed. D. J. Teece, 185-220. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.