Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Antitrust, Health Care Quality, And The Courts, Peter J. Hammer, William M. Sage
Antitrust, Health Care Quality, And The Courts, Peter J. Hammer, William M. Sage
Law Faculty Research Publications
Antitrust law represents the principal legal tool that the United States employs to police private markets, yet it often relegates quality and nonprice considerations to a secondary position. While antitrust law espouses the belief that vigorous competition will enhance quality as well as price, little evidence exists of the practical ability of courts to deliver on that promise. In this Article, Professors Hammer and Sage examine American health care as a vehicle for advancing understanding of the nexus among competition, quality, and antitrust law. The Article reports the results of a comprehensive empirical review of judicial opinions in health care …
The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law, Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson, Jonathan Hooks
The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law, Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson, Jonathan Hooks
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The issue of essential facilities has attracted renewed attention in Europe in recent years because of the controversy between IMS Health Inc. and NDC Health Corporation, two competitors in pharmaceutical data services in Germany . . . After an extensive investigation, the European Commission (EC) ordered that IMS grant access to the 1860 brick structure on commercially reasonable terms, and the EC decision is now on appeal in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. One issue that emerged in that litigation is whether a decision by European authorities to grant access to the alleged essential facility, especially one whose …
Reply To Grimes: Illusory Distinctions And Schisms In Tying Law, Keith N. Hylton, Michael Salinger
Reply To Grimes: Illusory Distinctions And Schisms In Tying Law, Keith N. Hylton, Michael Salinger
Faculty Scholarship
We applaud Professor Grimes's thoughtful analysis of the D.C. Circuit's decision in United States v. Microsoft (Microsoft III) and of our article. Professor Grimes has entered into precisely the debate that we argued should lay the foundation for the law on tying. In addition, one of Professor Grimes's themes is that the issues of tying law cannot be viewed in isolation but, instead, within a coherent philosophy of antitrust. We agree with him on that principle.