Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-mgq6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-01T14:14:41.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antitrust and Global Capitalism, 1930–2004. By Tony A. Freyer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xiv, 437. $80.00.

Review products

Antitrust and Global Capitalism, 1930–2004. By Tony A. Freyer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xiv, 437. $80.00.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Dean Williamson
Dean Williamson*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
REVIEWS OF BOOKS
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 1163 - 1165
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahmadjian, Christina, and Oxley, Joanne, “Using Hostages to Support Exchange: Dependence Balancing and Equity Ties in Japanese Automotive Supply Relationships.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22, no. 1 (2006): 213–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Joseph. “Patents and the New Trust Problem.” Law and Contemporary Problems 7 (1940): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Joseph. “Patent Abuses, Compulsion to License and Recent Decisions.” Columbia Law Review 43 (1943): 720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Joseph, and Welsh, Charles A.. Germany's Master Plan. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1943.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert. “Exclusion and the Sherman Act.” University of Chicago Law Review 72 (2005): 147–64.Google Scholar