http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/686 News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:37:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/686#comment-6323 Antitrust Review » Greg Werden on the Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:38:41 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/686#comment-6323 <p>[...] In a recent paper (unfortunately, no link yet), Greg Werden discusses The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher, a topic that was previously addressed on this blog. Werden begins with a review of the nature of the ancillary restraints doctrine, and restates his position that ancillarity is a question of calibrating the scope of the antitrust inquiry. If restraint R is ancillary to the main agreement, here a JV, then the rule of reason analysis applies to the package of venture and restraint, and we ask whether AE(JV+R) > PE(JV+R). (AE = anticompetitve effect; PE = procompetitive effect.) If restraint R is not ancillary to the JV, then there are two separate inquiries: [...]</p> […] In a recent paper (unfortunately, no link yet), Greg Werden discusses The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher, a topic that was previously addressed on this blog. Werden begins with a review of the nature of the ancillary restraints doctrine, and restates his position that ancillarity is a question of calibrating the scope of the antitrust inquiry. If restraint R is ancillary to the main agreement, here a JV, then the rule of reason analysis applies to the package of venture and restraint, and we ask whether AE(JV+R) > PE(JV+R). (AE = anticompetitve effect; PE = procompetitive effect.) If restraint R is not ancillary to the JV, then there are two separate inquiries: […]

]]>