Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Price Squeezes after Trinko Aryeh Friedman. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945) Judge Hand held that Alcoa, a vertically integrated company.
Advertisements

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Some Horizontal “Rule of Reason” Special Factors “Rule of Reason” analysis essential in select cases. Complete.
Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. Jentz Miller Cross BUSINESS.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Chapter 46 Antitrust Law.
 Section 1 of Sherman Act regulates “horizontal” and “vertical” restraints.  Per Se vs. Rule of Reason.  Per Se violations are blatant and substantially.
1 COPYRIGHT © 2007 West Legal Studies in Business, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and West Legal Studies in Business are trademarks.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (1986) Basic Facts: Indiana Dental Assoc., comprised of 85% dentist.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Brown Shoe v. United States (1962) Basic Facts: Brown, fourth largest shoe manufacture, merged with Kinney.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Refusals to Deal.
1 Abuse of Monopoly Power (or Dominant Position) Moscow, July 9, 2010 Douglas H. Ginsburg.
© 2007 by West Legal Studies in Business / A Division of Thomson Learning CHAPTER 20 Promoting Competition.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA) General Rule: Sherman 1-7 not apply to “conduct.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Standard Oil Co. of California v. U.S. (1949) Basic Facts: Justice Department challenged Standard Oil contracts.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Med South: FTC 2002 Advisory Opinion Basic Facts: Med South is for-profit entity formed by a large group.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake The Big Powerful “Innocent” Oligopoly The situation: 1.Market has few players, all successful. A “Shared.
A Primer on Foreclosure
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (Sup. Ct. 1967) What had happened to Schwinn’s market share? Three.
Chapter 47 Antitrust Law McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Brooke Group LTD v Williamson Tobacco (1993) Basic Facts: For 18 months, Brown Williams Tobacco (B&W) wages.
Essential Facilities Doctrine: A Case for India? Jaivir Singh Aashita Dawer (Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU)
Chapter Key Points Identify the goals of antitrust laws Understand the analysis of monopolization Identify both the potential benefits and harms of mergers.
Types of Cases Government Criminal Case Government Civil Case Private Civil Case W/jury Punishment (jail) Damages (money) Damages (money) W/judge only.
1 What is antitrust/competition law? What is its purpose?
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Competitor Foreclosure Arrangements 1.Tying Cases – To get this, you must buy that. 1.Exclusive dealing.
3.02 Explain the concept of competition.. Competition The rivalry between two or more businesses to gain as much of the total market sales or customer.
Antitrust. “Is there not a causal connection between the development of these huge, indomitable trusts and the horrible crimes now under investigation?
 “Market power” is the power of company to control the market for its product.  The law does allow for market monopolies when a patent is issued. During.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
 Create an invention or innovation that will make school easier for you. Explain how this invention works and why it would help you.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Hospital Corp of America v. FTC (7 th Cir. 1987) Basic Facts: Hospital Corp, owner of one hospital in Chattanooga,
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (Sup. Ct. 1984) Basic Facts: Exclusive contract between hospital.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Cartel Per Se Analytical Process Suspect category (price, boycott, market division)? Rule of Reason - Market.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines (D.C. Cir. 1986) Basic Facts: Deregulation of moving industry.
Trade Practices Common law –Covenant not to compete –Must be reasonable –Society demands laws against predatory business practices Legislation –Laws are.
Regulation & Deregulation Government can make sure that one company does not dominate the market. How? Through antitrust laws starting with the 1890 Sherman.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Patent Pooling What is patent pooling? When is patent pooling anticompetitive? Can others be excluded from.
Antitrust. Fundamental Assumptions Competition is good Big is not bad Monopoly practices are bad People should be allowed to buy whatever quality they.
Antitrust Law 1. Learning Objectives: 1.The three major pieces of federal antitrust legislation 2.Monopoly power vs. monopolization 3.Horizontal vs. Vertical.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. AT&T (D.D.C. 1981) What products did Western Electric provide Bell Operating Companies?
What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts relate to each other? What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (Sup. Ct. 1967) What had happened to Schwinn’s market share? Three.
 Federal gov may regulate business for any reason as long as advances gov economic need  States may regulate business as long as the laws do not interfere.
Legal Environment for a New Century. Click your mouse anywhere on the screen when you are ready to advance the text within each slide. After the starburst.
Chapter 46 Antitrust Laws and Unfair Trade Practices
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) Basic Facts: Dr. Miles sold medicines through 400.
Business Law and the Regulation of Business Chapter 43: Antitrust By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Chapter 23 Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices.
Advising Business Owners Instructor: Dwight Drake Purchase Sales Agreement -Reps and warranties -Covenants -Indemnifications -Due Diligence -Executive.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 26 Antitrust and Monopoly.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Assoc. (1990) Base Facts: Boycott by D.C. trial lawyers who demanded higher.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake
Chapter 37 Antitrust Law.
Chapter 22 Promoting Competition.
Chapter 27: Antitrust and Monopoly
CHAPTER 38 Antitrust.
Customized by Professor Ludlum December 1, 2016
Class 20 Antitrust, Winter, 2018 Antitrust Injury and Remedies
Essentials of the legal environment today, 5e
Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake
Presentation transcript:

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station in Lorain, Ohio refused to accept advertising from Loraine merchants who also advertised in new competing radio station in adjoining town. Purpose was to force advertisers to boycott competing station and preserve its monopoly. What was defendant’s defense? What is the private right to select customers and do business with whomever you choose? How vulnerable is that right? What are attempt to monopolize elements?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake U.S. v. Griffith (1948) Basic Facts: Large theatre owner (53 towns monopoly, 32 not monopoly) negotiated blanket license with distributors to get first run of films in all theaters. Is large scale buying not illegal per se? Is a blanket license inherently suspect? How did blanket license help in 53 monopoly markets? Is it illegal to use monopoly power in one market to gain competitve advantage in a non-monopoly market?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp (1954) Basic Facts: USM manufactured over 75% of shoe-making machines that were offered under 10 year licenses that required their use to full capacity and locked users in. What was the significance of conduct being “honestly industrial”? How did court view inevitable consequence of ability, natural forces, or law? How did court view impact of technology and innovation on competition? How did court view its divestiture power?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Essential Facilities and Duty to Deal U.S. v Terminal Railroad Assoc. of St. Louis (1912): Ct held that railroads who owned only railroad facility into St. Louis violated Sherman 1 and 2 by trying to control access of competitor railroads. Association must be an “impartial agent for all who, owing to conditions, are under compulsion to use its facilities.” Otter Tail Power v. U.S. (1973): Electric utility that previously sold to towns at retail refused to sell at wholesale to towns that had built their own transmission facilities or to “wheel” at wholesale for Bureau of Reclamation who agreed to sell to towns. Finding illegal monopolization, Ct said Otter Tail had used its ”strategic dominance to foreclose potential entrants.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Official Airlines Guides Inc. v. FTC (1980) Basic Facts: Publisher of official airline guide refused to include commuter airline schedules, which forced many to book commuter flights through major carriers. Commuters were at competitive disadvantage. Rationale for exclusion was that commuters were less reliable with schedules. How can this be distinguished from Loraine Case? Otter Tail case? Why was court concerned about limits of antitrust?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1985) Basic Facts: For many years, Aspen skiers could buy four day pass to ski all areas. Aspen acquired all players except Highlands (smaller, inferior resort) and then eliminated four day pass and offered only 3 day that excluded Highlands. When Highlands tried to offer vouchers to Aspen facilities to attract business, Aspen refused to honor vouchers. Jury awarded Highland $7.5 million treble damages, plus costs and atty fees. Court of Appeals affirmed. Did Aspen have monopoly power? What was alleged error, per Aspen? Was this essential facilities case? Who was hurt by what Aspen did?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Olympic Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union (1986) Basic Facts: Western Union desired to increase telex sales. Encouraged and assisted independents, like Olympic, to buy and lease terminals. When sales were slow, pulled support from independents (“flush these turkeys”) and decided to go direct to move inventory. Never denied services to customers of independents. Is Western Union any different than Aspen Ski? Was there an essential facility? Was the essential facility withheld to get preserve monopoly? What did Western Union do that hurt Olympic, an independent?