Whatever the outcome of the empirical debate, it is hard to expect the Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission to base an antitrust enforcement policy on the proposition that less competition is better than more or, put differently, that fewer innovators are better than more. If the agencies are taking the view that a threatened increase in concentration of research and development sources in a particular market warrants scrutiny and possible challenge, we really have to acknowledge that that is their job. This is a serious objection. Defining the area of research involved and identifying the participants and potential entrants are very difficult tasks. And the closer we get to pure research, the harder that job becomes.
Ideas are one type of commodity that can never be monopolized.
And any resulting case will make more sense. This seems to be the approach the agencies are taking. Sensormatic and the drug cases are examples of cases where the products in issue were in the development stage, not the research stage. I don't know of any case where the issue was pure research rather than development, and I'd be surprised if any case like that were ever brought. Another criticism of the innovation market cases goes to the relief frequently obtained.