Notes - Business Law Anti-Trust Law Price fixing = anti-trust violation Loss Leader keeping prices very low to build customer base(takes a loss at

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Law 4/30/07 Anti-Trust Law Price fixing = anti-trust violation Loss Leader – keeping prices very low to build customer base (takes a loss at first) - Then they raise prices and keep customer base Patent – legal monopoly - can set prices anywhere they want Trademark – ex. McDonalds Golden Arches United States v. Microsoft Sherman Anti-trust Act Against Netscape, Java, etc. Sherman Act 1. Maintaining a monopoly through anti-competitive means -Intel compatible PC operating system 2. Acquiring a monopoly through anti-competitive means -internet browser market (Internet Explorer) 3. Illegal tying arrangement. -taking an inferior product and latching it to something everyone wants. 3 main claims the government is issuing Government finds evidence of violation of all 3. In order for liability to attach for attempted monopolization, a plaintiff generally must prove: (1) “that the defendant has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with  (2) a specific intent to monopolize,” and 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course HADM 3385 taught by Professor Wagner during the Spring '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 2

Notes - Business Law Anti-Trust Law Price fixing = anti-trust violation Loss Leader keeping prices very low to build customer base(takes a loss at

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online