Abstract

The article is a review of the recent U.S. Supreme Court Trinko judgment, and touches upon such controversial issues as the essential facility and the leverage doctrines, the standard under which refusal to deal should be reviewed for the purposes of the monopolization offence, the relationship between regulatory and competition law and between judicial and regulatory enforcement. The message which the author conveys is that, while the Chicago school was right in denouncing the blunders and naiveties of pre-Chicago days, the strongly Chicago-oriented Court is falling prey these days to a possibly even higher degree of unscientific, unproven free-market ideology, which does not come out of close scrutiny much better than the old judgments did.