ABSTRACT
The objection to market power expressed by classical economists is the ability of the monopolist to pursue goals other than production and distribution of goods and services that customers are prepared to pay for with a minimum of resources. The Court referred also to Roche's technical lead and to overcapacity which would deter new entrants, and confirmed the finding that Roche enjoyed a dominant position. One distinction may be important since the Hugin judgment. The Court pointed out that owners of cash registers do not buy spare parts, they acquire them as part of a servicing arrangement. The dominance would affect only those who had already bought an Opel car abroad; but it may be that control under Article 86 was needed, in that the abuse alleged consisted of overcharging those buying cars abroad and so interfering with the integration of the market. The fact that Roche had maintained high market shares could be due to its effective competition.
