The instant decision is an evolutionary step in the development of extraterritorial antitrust but it falls short of establishing a workable standard. What the decision does point out is that the courts lack the experience and expertise necessary to deal effectively with the application of antitrust laws abroad. This inexperience will further erode the consistent application of United States antitrust laws abroad as the courts begin to hear cases involving less obvious offenses and less significant effects on United States commerce." If, as Sabbatino suggests,' the primary competency of the Executive in foreign affairs is to be the major factor in determining antitrust jurisdiction, the Attorney General may ultimately be vested with exclusive power to bring suit. That office could provide the needed expertise to litigate these complicated issues of extra-territorial antitrust. Alternatively, a court of exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction might be established to provide the experience and expertise necessary to the consistent application of our laws abroad.
Robert S. Patterson and George M. Taylor, III,
10 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol10/iss3/4
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Torts Commons