Prometheus unbound : towards the more precise proscription of the socially undesirable market conduct associated with dominance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulation of the market conduct of dominant firms is an entrenched part of the competition laws in many jurisdictions. The conduct which such laws proscribe has been variously described as "abuse of dominance", "anticompetitive conduct", "monopolization" or "improper use of market power". Each description is used by way of contrast to "normal competitive conduct". In all jurisdictions the courts have experienced considerable difficulty in articulating the distinction between lawful competitive behaviour and unlawful market rivalry, principally because both may exclude rivals and lead to concentrated markets, and the same conduct may be competitive or anticompetitive depending upon context. We argue, based upon an understanding of competition as a dynamic process (a cycle of innovation and imitation), driven by rivalry between firms in which the possibility of achieving dominance is a necessary element of the dynamic, that there is no market conduct unique to dominant firms that is socially undesirable. Rather, the prospect of dominance motivates all firms to pursue either competitive or rent seeking strategies to secure the supra-normal profits attendant to a dominant position. Competitive strategies are socially desirable as they seek to meet (or influence) consumer needs and thereby promote total welfare. Rent seeking strategies are undesirable as their purpose is to prevent other firms from meeting (or influencing) consumer needs and thus represent investments in the distribution rather than the creation of wealth. We propose the rejection of existing laws, which require proof of dominance, and their replacement by a law which proscribes rent seeking by all firms. We contend that such a law would articulate with greater precision the distinction between desirable competitive behaviour and unlawful rivalry providing the courts with improved direction as to the evidentiary enquiry to be undertaken when a complaint of anticompetitive conduct is made. It would also relieve dominant firms from the vagaries of the uncertainties inherent in the existing approach to the regulation of market conduct associated with dominance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".