Abstract
I. Introduction In addition to establishing a firm specific injury, proving an "antitrust injury" is essential in private antitrust actions under virtually all antitrust laws. 2 According to the United States Supreme Court, an antitrust injury is an "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent." 3 Such jurisprudential circularity necessitates an inquiry as to the fundamental purpose of the U.S. antitrust laws. In this regard, the antitrust laws are generally regarded to be "a set of laws designed to promote competition and, therefore, economic efficiency." 4 Thus, it is no surprise that antitrust injury has been said to be synonymous with "injury to competition." 5 As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit proclaimed, "[a]ntitrust law condemns practices that drive up prices by curtailing output." 6 Although the term has jurisprudential origins, precision with respect to its meaning is driven by economic constructs. The purpose of this Article is to foster a robust and thorough understanding of what it means to "injure competition" from a purely economic perspective. Section II of this Article begins by reviewing and discussing the development of the common law requirement that an antitrust plaintiff not only prove an injury-in- fact, but also prove antitrust injury. That Section will demonstrate that the assessment of competitive injury is a question for microeconomics and not jurisprudential precedence. In Section III, this Article presents an economic analysis of competitive injury. To understand "injury to competition," it is necessary to understand the fundamental ...