Antitrust Flashcards
(22 cards)
US v. Alcoa
§2
1) Relevant Mkt: product based, virgin Al
2) D’s portion of Mkt: 90% is monopoly
3) D using its power (not incidental) Predatory expansion
Sherman §2
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempted to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce among the several states, or with a foreign nation, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.
DuPont Cellophane
§2 Relevant Mkt includes commodities reasonably interchanged by consumers for the same purpose.
Cross Elasticity of demand as determined by B sales in response to A price (mkt history)
Standardized v. Differentiated Markets
Standardized = wheat, all interchangeable Differentiated = Product is unique and targeted at a class - mkt power strengthened
Int’l Boxing Club
§2 Relevant market is champ box, not regular season, because consumers treat them so different
Syufy v. AMC
§2 Relevant Mkt is expected top-grossing films because treated differently by advertisers; not after-the-fact determination
Microsoft - Relevant Mkt Substitution
§2 Antitrust doesn’t consider possible or future substitutions, only current competition.
Apple, Blackberry, Netscape/Java don’t compare with actual OS
Grinnell - Relevant Mkt
§1+2 Home security bundle companies united by single stockholder. Rel Mkt is ALL central station home security orgs because consumers and insurance accreditation differentiates
Grinnell stockholder is monopolist
3 companies are cartel
Grinnell - Remedies
Remedies should end the restraint on trade and deprive (D) of the benefits of the restraint/monopoly
Stock divestitures and ban on company buy-outs
Sherman §1
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.
Horizontal collaboration
agreement b/w 2+ companies that deal in the same market
Vertical collaboration
Agreement b/w parties up and down the supply chain
Ideal cartel conditions (5)
1) Low organization/maintenance costs
2) No diseconomies plaguing the cartel
3) Low price elasticity of demand
4) High durability – able to prevent defection and mkt entrants
5) Easy secrecy to avoid FTC enforcement
Chicago Bd of Trade
§1 Restraints on trade must be unreasonable to violate, that is it must suppress or destroy competition
Considerations (4) bus nature, competition before and after rule, nature and effect (actual and probable), intent ONLY as it helps interpret effect (original rule of reason)
HERE: call rule restrains only hours and promotes fairness/transparency
Appalachian Coal
§1 - Restraint via single seller is allowed to rehabilitated a dying market in depression
RoR analysis at the benevolent cartel
Socony Vacuum Oil
§1 - Price fixing Per Se illegal - even where D hasn’t the power, the conspiracy itself is illegal.
Restraint via mkt floor of distress oil NOT allowed to maintain post-war market.
Reasonableness of price isn’t material because subject to D’s definition
The National Recovery Act
Socony Vacuum; Appalachian - New Deal policy allowing creating of “fair practices” to soften the cut-throat competition of depression
BMI/ASCAP
§1 - Blanket Price is not Per Se Price Fixing because it increases efficiency of play/enforcement, previous consent decree suggests it isn’t simple, IP rights involved, blanket license is unique product
US Gypsum
Criminal sanctions under antitrust law requires criminal intent
Virginia Excelsior Mills
§1 - Common sales agent is ok (Appalachian) where producers maintain ability to set prices and refuse sales
NCAA
§1 - No Per Se price fixing where Ct lacks judicial experience with a subject and restraint has redeeming purpose - essential to the nature of the business (standardized sport).
RoR: Consumer welfare prescription - where the restraint makes the market unresponsive to consumer demand, it’s inherently anticompetitive
- Sherman applies to nonprofits acting competitively
- Goal of protecting one market (game attendance) doesn’t justify undermining another market
- Justification of keeping the schools competitive doesn’t work: TV restraints aren’t narrowly tailored
Brown University
Quick Look Analysis
