Roger Blair and the Goals of Antitrust

Published date01 September 2016
AuthorHerbert Hovenkamp
DOI10.1177/0003603X16657220
Date01 September 2016
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Roger Blair and the Goals of
Antitrust
Herbert Hovenkamp*
Abstract
This article examines Roger Blair’s remarkable scholarship concerning the goals of the antitrust laws.
Blair has been a consistent advocate of a ‘‘general welfare’’ as opposed to a ‘‘consumer welfare’’
standard for antitrust, but he has also repeatedly observed that the choice of a test makes a difference
in only a few cases. His scholarship also uncovered important inconsistencies in antitrust analysis. One
is its treatment of bilateral monopoly, in which antitrust often condemns practice that are welfare
increasing to the extent that they reflect the presence of countervailing power in bilateral monopoly
markets. For example, buyers’ cartels in response to seller market power are unlawful per se even
though many are welfare improvements over the existing situation. Consistent with his premise, Blair
advocates a strong efficiency defense in merger cases, and shows that the Albrecht rule condemning
maximum resale price maintenance is indefensible on both general welfare and consumer welfare
grounds.
Keywords
antitrust, general welfare, bilateral monopoly, mergers, maximum resale price maintenance,
comparative competition law
Introduction
For nearly twenty years it has been my privilege to have Roger D. Blair as a friend and coauthor. At
that time, he joined me on what is now volume 2A of the Antitrust Law treatise.
1
Neither Phillip
Areeda, who died soon after, nor I were economists with technical skills. Donald F. Turner, Phil
Areeda’s initial coauthor, was an economist, but he had left the treatise a decade earlier. Roger joined
me and wrote a lengthy, sophisticated, but nevertheless practical treatment of the measurement of
antitrust damages and related matters, including admissibility standards for expert testimony. He has
coauthored in that role ever since. His portion of the treatise, now also coauthored with Christine Piette
Durrance, is widely used by both forensic economist experts and litigants as a resource for identifying
* The University of Iowa, College of Law, Iowa City, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Herbert Hovenkamp, The University of Iowa, College of Law, 432 Boyd Law Building, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Email: herbert-hovenkamp@uiowa.edu
1. 2A PHILLIP E. AREEDA,HERBERT HOVENKAMP,ROGER D. BLAIR,&CHRISTINE PIETTE DURRANCE,ANTITRUST LAW (4th ed. 2014).
The Antitrust Bulletin
2016, Vol. 61(3) 382-392
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0003603X16657220
abx.sagepub.com

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT