Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

Antitrust Modernization Commission. 2007. Report and Recommendations. Washington, DC: The Antitrust Modernization Commission.Google Scholar

Baker, Jonathan B. 2007. Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: How Antitrust Fosters Innovation. Antitrust Law Journal, 73, 575–602.Google Scholar

Blair, Roger D. and Daniel Sokol, D.. 2012. The Rule of Reason and the Goals of Antitrust: An Economic Approach. Antitrust Law Journal, 78, 471–504.Google Scholar

California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (1979) 613 F.2d (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Heyer, Ken. 2008. Extraction vs. Extension: the Basis for Formulating Antitrust Policy towards Single-firm Conduct. Competition Policy International, 285–305.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Perloff, Harvey. 2005. Modern Industrial Organization, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Carlton, Dennis and Waldman, Michael. 2011. Upgrades, Switching Costs and the Leverage Theory of Tying. The Economic Journal, 122, 675–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth. 515 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar

Clayton Antitrust Act 1914 § 3, Pub. L. 63-212, 38 Stat. 731.Google Scholar

Commission Decision of 03/07/2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (2001) (Case No COMP/M.2220 – General Electric/Honeywell).Google Scholar

Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 712 (2d Cir. 1992).Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A. 2005. Multiproduct Discounting: A Myth of Nonprice Predation, University of Chicago Law Review, 72, 27–48.Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A. 2006. Mixed Bundling, Profit Sacrifice, and Consumer Welfare. Emory Law Journal, 55, 423–96.Google Scholar

Crane, Daniel A. 2013. Bargaining Over Loyalty. Texas Law Review, 92, 253–300.Google Scholar

Elhauge, Einer, 2009. Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory. Harvard Law Review, 123, 397–450.Google Scholar

EU Commission. 2005. Discussion Paper on the Application of Article 82 of the Treaty to Exclusionary Abuses.Google Scholar

EU Commission. 2009. Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings. 2009. 42 (C 45/02).Google Scholar

EU Council Regulation No. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation). Official Journal L 24, no. 29.01.Google Scholar

Evans, David S. and Schmalensee, Richard. 2001. 2002. Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries. NBER Working Paper w8268. www.nber.org/papers/w8268, subsequently published in Jaffe, Adam B., Lerner, Josh, and Stern, Scott (eds.). 2002. Innovation Policy and the Economy National Bureau of Economic Research Book 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–50.Google Scholar

Fisher, Franklin M., McGowan, John J., and Greenwood, Joen E.. 1983. Folded, Spindled, and Mutilated: Economic Analysis and USV IBM. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gifford, Daniel J. and Kudrle, Robert T.. 2011. Antitrust Approaches to Dynamically Competitive Industries in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 7, 695–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenlee, Patrick, Reitman, David, and Sibley, David S.. 2008. An Antitrust Analysis of Bundled Loyalty Discounts. Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, 1132–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guidelines on the Assessment of Nonhorizontal Mergers under Council Regulation on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings (2008/C245/07) (2008).Google Scholar

Hoffmann-La Roche v. Commission [1879] ECR 461, ¶91 (Case 85/76).Google Scholar

Honeywell International Inc. v. Commission of the European Communities (2005) (Case T-209/01).Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Erik N. and Hovenkamp, Herbert J.. 2010. Tying Arrangements and Antitrust Harm. Arizona Law Review, 52, 925–76.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2006. Discounts and Exclusions. Utah Law Review, January, 841–62.Google Scholar

IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG (2004) ECR I-5039.Google Scholar

International Business Machines Corp. v. United States (1936) 298 U.S. 131.Google Scholar

Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde (1984) 466 U.S. 2, 32.Google Scholar

Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds (1990) 911 F.2d 970, 976–77 (4th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar

Leegin Creative Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007) 551 U.S. 877, 886.Google Scholar

LePage’s Inc. v. 3M (2003) 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir.).Google Scholar

Majoras, Deborah Platt. 2001. GE-Honeywell: The US Decision. Remarks of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division US Department of Justice on November 29.Google Scholar

Manufacture française des pneumatiques Michelin v. Commission (Case T-203/01).Google Scholar

Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Health Care Group, 2006 WL 1236666 C.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d, 350 Fed. Appx. 95 (9th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar

Microsoft Corp. v. Commission of the European Communities (2007) Case T-201/04.Google Scholar

Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co. (1917) 243 U.S. 502.Google Scholar

Motta, Massimo. 2004. Competition Policy: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nalebuff, Barry. 2005. Exclusionary Bundling. Antitrust Bull., 50, 321–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicsand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

Northern Pacific Ry. v. United States (1958) 356 U.S. 1, 6.Google Scholar

NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461 (Case 322/81).Google Scholar

Ortho Diagnostic Systems v. Abbott Laboratories, 920 F. Supp. 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).Google Scholar

Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) v. Commission of the European Communities (1995) ECR I-743.Google Scholar

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 (9th Cir. 12, 1992, 1993).Google Scholar

SmithKline Corporation v. El Lilly, 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir. 1978).Google Scholar

Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. (1975) 510 F.2d 894, 899 (10th Cir. 1975).Google Scholar

Tomra Systems ASA v. Commission (Case 549/10) ECLI:EU:C:2012:221.Google Scholar

United States v. Loew’s, Inc. (1962) 371 U.S. 38.Google Scholar

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1995) 1995–2 Trade Cases ¶ 71,096 (D.D.C. 1995).Google Scholar

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1998) 147 F.3d 935, 945–946 (D.C. Cir. 1998).Google Scholar

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1999) 84 F. Supp. 2d 9, (D.D.C. 1999).Google Scholar

United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001) 253 F.3d 34, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar

United States v. Terminal R.R. Association (1912) 224 U.S. 383.Google Scholar

US Department of Justice Antitrust Division Submission. 2001. OECD Roundtable on Portfolio Effects in Conglomerate Mergers. Range Effects: The United States Perspective.Google Scholar

US Department of Justice and United States and Federal Trade Commission. 2007. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.Google Scholar

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, 69 F. Supp. 2d 571, 580 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d, 257 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2001).Google Scholar

Whinston, Michael D. 1990. Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion. American Economic Review, 80, 837–59.Google Scholar

ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012).Google Scholar