Recoupment inquiries play an increasingly important role in antitrust analysis, yet they raise a number of conundrums: How can a failure of recoupment due to the plausible long-run profit recovery being dwarfed by short-run losses be reconciled with a defense of no predation that presupposes no short-run sacrifice to begin with? How can recoupment inquiries be diagnostic with respect to competing explanations for defendants’ behavior—such as product promotion or “legal” predation—that likewise require recoupment? This article addresses these questions and others by grounding recoupment and predatory pricing analysis more broadly in a decision framework that focuses on classification (distinguishing illegal predation from other explanations for firms’ pricing) and on the magnitudes of the deterrence benefits and chilling costs of imposing liability. Regarding the latter, although concerns for the chilling of procompetitive activity sensibly drive predatory pricing analysis, the great variation in chilling costs across competing explanations for alleged predation is unrecognized. Much of the analysis here is not particular to recoupment; the investigation aims to inform future research, policy, and practice regarding many aspects of predatory pricing as well as other forms of anticompetitive conduct. Forthcoming, Journal of Legal Analysis (2018)

中文翻译：

---

补偿和掠夺性定价分析

补偿金查询在反托拉斯分析中起着越来越重要的作用，但是却引起了许多难题：如何将由于短期亏损使合理的长期利润回收相形见due而导致的补偿金失败与不以为然的辩护相协调？先假设没有短期牺牲吗？对于同样需要补偿的被告人行为的竞争性解释（例如产品促销或“合法”掠夺），补偿查询如何进行诊断？本文通过在决策框架中更广泛地将补偿和掠夺性定价分析作为基础来解决这些问题和其他问题，该决策框架侧重于分类（将非法掠夺与公司定价的其他解释区分开）以及威慑收益的大小和施加负债的冷却成本。关于后者，尽管对激进竞争活动的担忧会明智地推动掠夺性定价分析，但人们并未认识到在对所谓掠夺的各种竞争性解释中，激昂成本的巨大差异。这里的很多分析并非只针对补偿。该调查旨在为掠夺性定价以及其他形式的反竞争行为的许多方面的未来研究，政策和实践提供信息。即将出版，《法律分析杂志》（2018年）有关掠夺性定价以及其他形式的反竞争行为的许多方面的实践。即将出版，《法律分析杂志》（2018年）有关掠夺性定价以及其他形式的反竞争行为的许多方面的实践。即将出版，《法律分析杂志》（2018年）