Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Consider the following fictitious sales data (in thousands of dollars) for both e-books and physical books. Firms have numbers instead of names, and Firm 1generates only e-book sales. Suppose that antitrust authorities' initial evaluation of whether a single firm may possess "monopoly power" is whether its share of sales in the relevant market exceeds 70percent.

a. Suppose that the antitrust authorities determine that selling physical books and e-book selling are individually separate relevant markets. Does an initial evaluation suggest that any single firm has monopoly power, as defined by the antitrust authorities?

b. Suppose that in fact there is really only a single book industry, in which firms compete in selling both physical books and e-books. According to the antitrust authorities' initial test of the potential for monopoly power, is there actually cause for concern?

Short Answer

Expert verified

a) Given the information in the above table, antitrust authorities' definition of "monopoly power," and the separate consideration of book selling, firm 1had monopolistic power.

b) Firm 2 does have the greatest total market share of 42.5 percent, which is below than the antitrust authorities' established market share.

Step by step solution

01

Introduction(part a).

Physical books are referred to as printed books. The term "e-book" refers to a digital book.

02

Given Data (part a).

(a) Based on the antitrust authorities' definition of monopolistic power and the available facts, firm 1 possesses monopoly power in internet book selling.

The table below shows how internet book selling compares to book selling in physical bookstores.

The above table demonstrates that firm 1controls 75% of total internet book sales, which is more than the antitrust authorities' maximum market share.

03

Explanation (Part a).

As per antitrust regulators, a corporation with a market share of more than 70% is deemed to have monopoly power. Considering the information in the above table, antitrust authorities' definition of "monopoly power," and the independent consideration of book selling, firm 1 has monopolistic power.

04

Introduction (Part b).

A printed book is made up of multiple of pages bound together by the front and rear covers. All pages of an e-book are in digital format, which implies the book has been converted to an electronic format.

05

Given Data(part b).

b) There is no reason for concern as none of the businesses has more than 70% of the entire market share.

06

Explanation (Part b).

Firm 2has the largest total market share of42.5 percent, which is lower than the antitrust authorities' established market share.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A firm that sells both Internet-security software and computer antivirus software will sell the antivirus software as a stand-alone product. It will only sell the Internet-security software to consumers in a combined package that also includes the antivirus software. What is this business practice called?

Suppose that a business has developed a very high quality product and operates more efficiently in producing that product than any other potential competitor. As a consequence, at present it is the only seller of this product, for which there are few close substitutes. Is this firm in violation of U.S. antitrust laws? Explain.

An years past, firms around the world have secretly engaged in collusive agreements to restrain production and push prices above competitive levels.

Evidence compiled by government officials investigating such agreements has revealed that conspiring firms often utilize similar methods of establishing and enforcing collusive restraints of trade. Most agreements, for instance, assign to each firm an allowed market share, a permitted region of operations, or an approved set of customers. In addition, participating firms commonly are required to exchange sales information so that they can monitor adherence to their agreements to restrain trade. In this chapter, you will learn why firms that typically utilize these techniques to formulate and maintain collusive agreements engage in secret conspiracies: Such agreements are illegal under U.S. antitrust laws.

Understand the foundations of antitrust regulations and enforcement

Why do you suppose that nearly all of the world's antitrust authorities agree that collusive conspiracies to restrain trade and fix prices are illegal?

A few years ago, the U.S. government created a "Do Not Call Registry" and forbade marketing firms from calling people who placed their names on this list. Today, an increasing number of companies are sending mail solicitations to individuals inviting them to send back an enclosed postcard for more information about the firms' products. What these solicitations fail to mention is that they are worded in such a way that someone who returns the postcard gives up protection from telephone solicitations, even if they are on the government's "Do Not Call Registry." In what type of behavior are these companies engaging? Explain your answer. (Hint: Are these firms meeting the letter of the law but violating its spirit?)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free