ABSTRACT
A firm's unilateral refusal to deal with a competitor has always been a shaky foundation upon which to build a case for liability under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. There are both policy and doctrinal reasons why unilateral refusals to deal might matter for antitrust enforcement. The government grants intellectual rights only after a showing of certain levels of innovation, a showing that has not been made ex ante for other kinds of property. The federal courts' general approach to refusal-to-deal claims under Section 2 can, therefore, be fairly described as highly restrictive but not entirely preclusive. The chapter argues that neither economics nor intellectual property (IP) policy considerations provide a sound basis for exempting refusals to supply IP from antitrust law's general liability standard for unilateral refusals to deal.
