Antitrust, Innovation, and Competitiveness.
Hemphill, Thomas A.
To what extent does U.S. antitrust policy adversely impact
technological and organizational innovation by American firms and
thereby affect U.S. corporations' abilities to compete in the world
economy? To explore this question, professors Jorde and Teece enlisted an eminent group of industrial organization economists and antitrust
legal scholars to specifically address (in eight articles) the issue of
why "U.S. antitrust policy did not seem to recognize how seminal innovation was to competition and to the U.S. standard of living
(Preface)."
In the introduction, Jorde and Teece point out a basic axiom:
professional economists are in nearly unanimous agreement that economic
welfare is the goal of antitrust policy. The problem, as the editors
view it, is that when antitrust policy is implemented it focuses on
static analysis, i.e., single-time periods, where there is almost no
reference to innovation and its importance to competition and overall
economic welfare. Jorde and Teece believe that it is dynamic innovation
and its subsequent rapid commercialization that are the major factors
propelling national productivity improvement and the general economic
welfare. Thus, when the courts have a choice to make in antitrust cases,
the conflict should be resolved in favor of future-looking innovation
over traditional static consumer welfare.
In "Innovation, Cooperation, and Antitrust," editors Jorde
and Teece focus their attention on horizontal agreements among firms who
are potential competitors and argue for a different approach to
horizontal restraints. According to Jorde and Teece, the traditional
view of the innovation process is characterized as a linear
process--R&D through manufacture through marketing. The modern view
of innovation, a dynamic view, involves more interdependencies, tighter
linkages, and increased feedback among and between the functional areas.
For reasons of cost, competence, and capacity, most firms lack the
capacity to conduct all these activities alone.
Since the dynamic innovation process requires an increasing number of
interfirm linkages and alliances, firms are exposing themselves to
public and private antitrust treble damage actions. There are presently
no Department of Justice guidelines and precious little case law to
guide managers. Jorde and Teece believe that the courts presently have
only murky rule of reason standards to guide them. The editors offer
their own criteria for rule of reason analysis which includes the
appropriability regime in which firms find themselves, the pace of
technological change, the diversity of new sources of knowledge, the
need to access complimentary assets and technologies, and the
recognition that in high-technology industries competition commonly
proceeds on the basis of product attributes, not price. As their
prescription to this dilemma, Jorde and Teece offer an extension of the
National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 as a "safe harbor"
to exempt cooperative efforts to commercialize innovation.
In "Ignorance and Antitrust," the Honorable Frank
Easterbrook identifies U.S. antitrust legislation as high risk, high
delay litigation. According to Easterbrook, the litigation life-cycle is
much longer than the product life-cycle in industries characterized by
rapid technological change. He sees this issue as a serious impediment to U.S. global competitiveness.
Easterbrook considers ignorance and uncertainty as significant
barriers to the implementation of effective antitrust jurisprudence.
Specifically, this ignorance takes the form of poorly developed
understanding of complex business behavior, such as in cooperative
standard-setting arrangements, which involve efficient practices that
often appear to be anticompetitive. In addition, unpredictable
administrative and legislative factors, as in the assessment of
potential competition, often complicate economic analysis and create
greater uncertainty.
Easterbrook's antidote involves the courts creating simple, per
se rules which would conserve on information and the costs of
litigation, make greater use of the market power threshold, and employ
administrative "safe harbors" to provide certainty and
encouragement for business cooperation.
Antitrust analysis can benefit from having two complimentary
conceptual lenses, says Oliver Williamson, for understanding complex
organizations and business practices: applied price theory and
transaction cost economics. In "Antitrust Lenses and the Uses of
Transaction Cost Economics Reasoning," Williamson points out that
the applied price theory approach comes close to arguing that prices and
quantities are the only relevant data, while transaction cost analysis
adopts a comparative contractual approach in which the transaction is
the basic unit of analysis, and data on transaction frequency, the
specificity of assets needed to support exchange, and uncertainty are
reviewed. Applied price theory and transaction cost economics are
necessary compliments to one another.
Transaction cost economics impacts innovation since the transaction
cost paradigm focuses on uniqueness and the role of transaction specific
assets, including knowledge. Williamson postulates that transaction cost
economics is more sensitive to the various forms of complex contracts
needed to support the innovation process, and the contractual dilemmas
posed by weak appropriability. Integration, as a response to this
problem, is viewed as a possible solution under the transaction cost
paradigm.
Antitrust traditionalists will have serious reservations about the
thrust of many of these articles, but the issue of faltering U.S.
competitiveness has now been placed in the forefront of national
priorities for public policy solutions. In this light, the antitrust
laws and their economic premises require careful re-examination and,
where warranted, modifications.
The concept of dynamic competition and the modern view of innovation
(often requiring horizontal linkages between and among industry members)
is better understood by America's European and Asian competitors.
While the U.S. has offered limited antitrust exemptions (R&D) for
cooperative ventures for economic/technical reasons or to promote
international competitiveness, both the European Economic Community and
Japan offer such exemptions through commercialization |1~.
Certainly, there is a strong public policy case offered for the
position that where there is little evidence of significant market power
in an industry, small and medium size U.S. firms should be allowed to
engage in commercialization activities to better meet foreign
competition. Establishing antitrust exemptions for this position,
through administrative "safe harbors," will require a
legislative mandate to guide firms, enforcement agencies, and the
courts. With continued antitrust scholarship of this book's
caliber, U.S. antitrust policy will eventually be brought "kicking
and screaming" into the rapidly evolving global political economy.
Reference
1. Report of the President's Commission on Industrial
Competitiveness, Global Competition: The New Reality, Vol. 2.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985, p. 191.
@ @