{"title":"Antitrust (Over-?) Confidence","authors":"T. Lambert, Joshua D. Wright","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1086440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On October 5, 2007, a group of antitrust scholars convened on Chicago's Near North Side to discuss monopolization law. In the course of their freewheeling but fascinating conversation, a number of broad themes emerged. Those themes can best be understood in contrast to a body of antitrust scholarship that was born six miles to the south, at the University of Chicago. Most notably, the North Side discussants demonstrate a hearty confidence in the antitrust enterprise - a confidence that is not shared by Chicago School scholars, who generally advocate a more modest antitrust. As scholars who are more sympathetic to Chicago School views, we are somewhat skeptical. While we applaud many the of the insights and inquiries raised during the conversation, and certainly this sort of discussion in general, our task in this article is to draft a critical analysis of the October 5 conversation. In particular, we critique the North Side discussants' vision of a big antitrust that would place equal emphasis on Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and would expand private enforcement of Section 2.","PeriodicalId":87192,"journal":{"name":"Loyola consumer law review","volume":"20 1","pages":"219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Loyola consumer law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1086440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
On October 5, 2007, a group of antitrust scholars convened on Chicago's Near North Side to discuss monopolization law. In the course of their freewheeling but fascinating conversation, a number of broad themes emerged. Those themes can best be understood in contrast to a body of antitrust scholarship that was born six miles to the south, at the University of Chicago. Most notably, the North Side discussants demonstrate a hearty confidence in the antitrust enterprise - a confidence that is not shared by Chicago School scholars, who generally advocate a more modest antitrust. As scholars who are more sympathetic to Chicago School views, we are somewhat skeptical. While we applaud many the of the insights and inquiries raised during the conversation, and certainly this sort of discussion in general, our task in this article is to draft a critical analysis of the October 5 conversation. In particular, we critique the North Side discussants' vision of a big antitrust that would place equal emphasis on Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and would expand private enforcement of Section 2.
2007年10月5日,一群反垄断学者聚集在芝加哥近北区讨论反垄断法。在他们畅所欲言却引人入胜的谈话中,出现了许多广泛的主题。要想理解这些主题,最好的办法是与诞生于6英里以南的芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)的反垄断研究机构进行对比。最值得注意的是,北区的讨论者对反垄断事业表现出了由衷的信心——这种信心是芝加哥学派学者所没有的,他们通常主张更温和的反垄断。作为更赞同芝加哥学派观点的学者,我们多少有些怀疑。虽然我们赞赏谈话中提出的许多见解和疑问,当然也赞赏这种讨论,但我们在本文中的任务是起草一份对10月5日谈话的批判性分析。特别是,我们批评北侧讨论者关于大型反垄断的观点,该观点将同等强调《谢尔曼法》第1条和第2条,并扩大第2条的私人执行。