A Survey of the Status of Supply Substitutability in U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal Cases
Abstract
An ongoing problem in the application of U.S. antitrust law is the delineation of the appropriate product market. Demand and supply substitutability, as measured by the coefficients of cross elasticity of demand and the coefficient of elasticity of supply, respectively, were introduced in the early 1950s as two possible criteria to define product markets. Although the implementation and calculation of both concepts involve similar problems, the courts have been more readily receptive of cross elasticity of demand as a criterion on which to define product markets. Since the author has addressed this issue in a recent work, he confines his attention in the present paper to reviewing and updating the use of the supply substitutability concept as a criterion for product market delineation in U.S. Supreme Court and in the Federal Appeals Courts.References
[2] Bain, Joe S. 1952. Price Theory. Holt.
[3] Bishop, Robert L. 1961. ‘Market Classification Again.’ Southern Economic Journal. 28: 83-90.
[4] Brown Shoe Co. v. U.S., 370 U.S. (1962).
[5] Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, 348 F. Supp. (C.D. Cal. 1972).
[6] Clarkson, Kenneth W. and Miller, Roger L. 1982. Industrial Organization: Theory, Evidence, and Public Policy. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
[7] Columbia Metal Culvert Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp., 579 F.2d 20 (3d Cir), cert. denied, 99S. Ct. 214(1978).
[8] Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. (1992).
[9] Greco, Anthony J. ‘Cross Elasticity of Supply: Seldom Heard of and Seldom Taught.’ Journal For Economic Educators, V 5, No. 1, Winter 2005: 1-6.
[10] Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc.v. Nucor Corp., No. 11-14983, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 14187, July 15, 2013.
[11] In the Matter of lnternational Telephone and Telegraph Corp. 104 F.T.C. (1984).
[12] L.G. Balfour Co. v. FTC, 442 F. 2d 1 (7th Cir. 1971).
[13] Karsh, Bruce A, 1979. ‘The Role of Supply Substitutability in Defining the Relevant Product Market.’ Virginia Law Review. 65: 129-151.
[14] Machlup, Fritz. 1952. The Economics of Sellers' Competition. The Johns Hopkins Press.
[15] Needham, Douglas, 1969. Economic Analysis and Industrial Structure. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
[16] Reynolds Metals Co. v. FTC, 309 F. 2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1962).
[17] Rothery Storage Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 253 U.S. App. D.C. 142, 792 F. 2d (D.C. Cir. 1986).
[18] SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 312 U.S. App. D.C. 414, F. 3d (D.C. Circuit 1995).
[19] Shepherd, William G. 1997. The Economics of lndustrial Organization, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall.
[20] Stocking, George W. 1957. ‘Economic Tests of Monopoly and the Concept of the Relevant Market.’ Antitrust Bulletin. II: 479-493.
[21] Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F. 2d 894 (10th Cir.) cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 (1975)
[22] Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles 0. Finley and Co., 512 F. 2d (9th Cir. 1975), rev'g and remanding 365 F. Supp. 235 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
[23] U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Industries Inc., 7 F. 3d 986 (11th Cir. 1993).
[24] U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U.S. (1964).
[25] U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 168 F. Supp 576 (S.D. N.Y. 1958).
[26] U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. (1948).
[27] U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. (1966).
[28] Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer Inc., 957 F. 2d 1318; 995 F. 2d 1324; 11 F. 3d 660 (6th Cir. 1993).
[29] Werden, Gregory J. 1992. ‘The History of Antitrust Market Delineation:’ Marquette Law Review. 76, 123-215.
[30] Yoder Brothers v. California - Florida Plant Corp., 537 F. 2d 1347 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1094 (1979).
Keywords
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.