We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Brown Shoe Case and the New Antimerger Policy: Reply.
- Authors
Martin, David Dale
- Abstract
This article presents the author's comments on professor Bryce J. Jones' views on the decision given by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown Shoe Co. case, as of June 1964. Jones argues that the Supreme Court's acceptance of the submarket approach in merger case is undesirable, and he advocates the use of the same market concept in Clayton Act cases as in Sherman Act cases. But, according to the author, it is not quite consistent with acceptable economic analysis to use one market concept in evaluating the degree of competition or monopoly that has existed in the past and another market concept in forecasting the probable effect of a merger or acquisition on competition in the future. In the latter case one must not only draw inferences from incomplete information about what existed in the past but must also forecast future market boundaries. The author also questions Jones's basic assumption that a market drawn to include competitive products and suppliers traces out the true boundaries of a market.
- Subjects
UNITED States; ANTITRUST law; LEGAL judgments; CALERES Inc.; MARKET share; ECONOMICS; JONES, Bryce J.; MERGERS &; acquisitions; COMPETITION; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
American Economic Review, 1964, Vol 54, Issue 4, p413
- ISSN
0002-8282
- Publication type
Article