On the Risks of Using the Sequential Product-Level SSNIP Approach to Identify Relevant Antitrust Markets‡

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Padilla ◽  
Salvatore Piccolo ◽  
Pekka Sääskilahti
Keyword(s):  
Market Definition ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Demand Functions ◽  
Product Level ◽  
Loss Analysis ◽  
Merger Analysis ◽  
Influential Paper ◽  
Sequential Product

Abstract In a recent influential paper Coate et al. (2021) have criticized the sequential product-level approach to market definition in merger review. They argue that a simultaneous market-level approach to critical loss is more appropriate than a product-level critical loss analysis, because under certain plausible demand scenarios (nonlinear demand functions) the latter could yield the wrong answer on market definition—i.e., excessively broad or narrow markets. We extend their analysis by showing that a sequential product-level approach actually leads to an excessively narrow market definition when the typical nonlinear demand functions used in merger analysis are employed.

High energy resolution spectrometer for the dedicated STEM

1984 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 558-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.E. Batson
Keyword(s):  
Collection Efficiency ◽  
Core Loss ◽  
Beam Current ◽  
High Energy ◽  
High Energy Resolution ◽  
Acquisition Time ◽  
Good Definition ◽  
Loss Analysis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Acceleration Voltage

Use of the STEM to obtain precise electronic information has been hampered by the lack of energy loss analysis capable of a resolution and accuracy comparable to the 0.3eV energy width of the Field Emission Source. Recent work by Park, et. al. and earlier by Crewe, et. al. have promised magnetic sector devices that are capable of about 0.75eV resolution at collection angles (about 15mR) which are great enough to allow efficient use of the STEM probe current. These devices are also capable of 0.3eV resolution at smaller collection angles (4-5mR). The problem that arises, however, lies in the fact that, even with the collection efficiency approaching 1.0, several minutes of collection time are necessary for a good definition of a typical core loss or electronic transition. This is a result of the relatively small total beam current (1-10nA) that is available in the dedicated STEM. During this acquisition time, the STEM acceleration voltage may fluctuate by as much as 0.5-1.0V.

An old friend is better than two new ones? Approaches to market research in the context of digital transformation for the antitrust laws enforcement

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Shastitko ◽  
O. A. Markova
Keyword(s):  
Business Models ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Market Definition ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Pass Through ◽  
Type Ii Errors

Digital transformation has led to changes in business models of traditional players in the existing markets. What is more, new entrants and new markets appeared, in particular platforms and multisided markets. The emergence and rapid development of platforms are caused primarily by the existence of so called indirect network externalities. Regarding to this, a question arises of whether the existing instruments of competition law enforcement and market analysis are still relevant when analyzing markets with digital platforms? This paper aims at discussing advantages and disadvantages of using various tools to define markets with platforms. In particular, we define the features of the SSNIP test when being applyed to markets with platforms. Furthermore, we analyze adjustment in tests for platform market definition in terms of possible type I and type II errors. All in all, it turns out that to reduce the likelihood of type I and type II errors while applying market definition technique to markets with platforms one should consider the type of platform analyzed: transaction platforms without pass-through and non-transaction matching platforms should be tackled as players in a multisided market, whereas non-transaction platforms should be analyzed as players in several interrelated markets. However, if the platform is allowed to adjust prices, there emerges additional challenge that the regulator and companies may manipulate the results of SSNIP test by applying different models of competition.

Empirical analysis of market boundaries in telecommunications

2019 ◽  
pp. 90-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia S. Pavlova ◽  
Andrey Е. Shastitko
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Mass Distribution ◽  
End Users ◽  
Economic Modeling ◽  
Empirical Approach ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Technological Changes ◽  
Loss Analysis ◽  
E Mail

The article deals with the problem of determining market boundaries for antitrust law enforcement in the field of telecommunications. An empirical approach has been proposed for determining the product boundaries of the market in the area of mass distribution of messages, taking into account the comparative characteristics of the types and methods of notification (informing) of end users; the possibilities of switching from one way of informing to another, including the evolution of such opportunities under the influence of technological changes; switching between different notification methods. Based on the use of surveys of customers of sending SMS messages, it is shown that the product boundaries should include not only sending messages via SMS, but also e-mail, instant messengers, Push notifications and voice information. The paper illustrates the possibilities of applying the method of critical loss analysis to determining the boundaries of markets based on a mixture of surveys and economic modeling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document