Harold Winter
Ohio University
17 Papers
124 Citations
Harold Winter is an academic researcher from Ohio University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Court of equity. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 16 publications. Previous affiliations of Harold Winter include Texas A&M University.
Chat about Author
Papers
Bilateral Most-Favored-Customer Pricing and Collusion
William S. Neilson,Harold Winter +1 more
TL;DR: The authors showed that unless a restrictive and unappealing assumption is made about demand, there is no equilibrium in which both firms adopt most-favored-customer (MFC) policies in a two-period differentiated products duopoly model.
44
Unilateral most-favored-customer pricing A comparison with Stackelberg *
William S. Neilson,Harold Winter +1 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the Stackelberg leader price must be lower than the Bertrand price, and the equilibrium price, however, must be the same as the leader price.
37
Votes based on protracted deliberations
William S. Neilson,Harold Winter +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze group decision-making in situations in which members discuss the value of a continuous random variable, then take an up-ordown vote based on their assessments of the continuous variable.
23
Enhancing bargaining power with most-favored-customer pricing
William S. Neilson,Harold Winter +1 more
TL;DR: A monopolist faces a finite sequence of identical buyers and negotiates with each buyer individually as mentioned in this paper, and most-favored-customer pricing allows the firm to exploit its position as the repeat player in the game and extract more of each buyer's surplus.
21
The Elimination of Hung Juries: Retrials and Nonunanimous Verdicts
William S. Neilson,Harold Winter +1 more
TL;DR: In this paper, a tradeoff between hung jury costs and verdict accuracy exists when considering unanimous versus non-unanimous verdict rules, and it is shown that if retrials occur until a verdict is reached, a unanimous verdict rule is generally more accurate than a nonunanimous rule with respect to the probabilities of all four types of verdicts.
14