This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Antitrust & Trade Reg.

Nov. 20, 2015

Antitrust balancing is art, not a science

Judges often describe the process of evaluating potentially harmful and potentially beneficial factors in antitrust litigation as "balancing." By Herbert Hovenkamp

Herbert Hovenkamp

See more...

By Herbert Hovenkamp

Antitrust litigation often faces situations where some factors point toward competitive harm while others indicate benefit. Judges often describe the process of evaluating these factors as "balancing." In United States v. Apple Inc., 791 F. 3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) - where Apple was found guilty of conspiring with publishers to raise the price of ebooks - the court believed the need to balance is what justifies application...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up