Patent tying and vertical integration are really price discrimination, not monopoly extension.

Evidence

In patent tying cases, for instance, when the courts spoke of this device as an attempt to expand patent monopoly, the courts—according to Director and Levi—misconstrued economic reasoning: “[We] believe that the [tying] practices … can be explained best as methods of charging different prices to different customers and not as extensions of monopoly to other areas” … Contrary to Levi’s 1947 claim, they maintained that “Vertical integration … often appears explainable as a method price discrimination” (p. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1143

Categorization

• XREF: This reframing of ‘restrictive’ practices as price discrimination anticipates the price-theoretic turn in Chicago antitrust associated with Bork and Posner. — connects to: Price discrimination generally does not create monopoly or harm competition — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1144

Broader Connections

• Price discrimination generally does not create monopoly or harm competition #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1144