The Parker v. Brown (or “state action”) doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution impose differen limits on antitrust suits challenging anticompetitive state regulation. The Supreme Court has developed these two versions of state sovereign immunity separately, and lower courts...

Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing has had theoretical importance for antitrust law far out of proportion to the trivial dispute it resolved. It has divided adherents of the Chicago and Post-Chicago Schools, providing a useful vehicle for considering the proper goals of antitrust. And it has...

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus...

This article was published in 1999 while the Microsoft trial was still in progress. It examines the opposing positions of the parties on the legality, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, of Microsoft's integration of its Internet Explorer web browser with its Windows operating system. For the...

This article, published in 2001, argues that bundling of broadband transmission and Internet services by cable companies does not pose a sufficient risk of harm to innovation to justify a regulatory or antitrust requirement of open access

This article, published in 2001, considers the appropriate standards for monopolization cases in which the defendant has allegedly reduced innovation by refusing to deal with the plaintiffs. We note that claims of reduced innovation are problematic, particularly in dynamic markets, because...

This book chapter, published in 2002, argues that courts decide antitrust cases based mainly on their perception of the “obvious” effects of the practices at issue on consumers. Courts must rely on both theory and evidence in resolving antitrust cases, but the persuasiveness of theoretical...