Iii ct says theyve never actually adopted the

This preview shows page 20 - 22 out of 36 pages.

iii. Ct. says they’ve never actually adopted the essential facilities doctrine, even though they could argue otherwise iv. Rationale is that the statutory regulation to force sharing is better than the court ordered sharing c. If they were not required to share, absent the other statute i. there probably would have been unnecessary duplication ii. There would still be competition if towers were shared iii. You could still compete on national level and have different companies in different regions G. Noncollusive, Nonmonopolizing, Noncompetitive Conduct 1. DuPont v. FTC p. 446 a. Catalytic converters made cars “knock” i. Antiknock compounds contained lead, increased demand in 1960s ii. Adoption of environmental statutes killed demand for antiknock compounds b. This is an appeal from FTC ruling – FTC found business practices unlawful under FTC Act §5 (which is broader than Sherman) – merges with antitrust because it involves labeling, usage, etc of consumer products c. There were four market players – tightly oligopolistic i. Had MFN clauses – won’t have to pay more than our best market price ii. Sold at base-point pricing iii. Gave extra advance notice of price increase d. For cartels, MFN clauses are facilitating devices to prevent cheating i. No one gets benefit from cheating because lowest price gets matched ii. Delivery price could also be facilitating device because you can hide pricing and detect cheaters who discount delivery e. For exam, know how cartels operate: i. Why they exist ii. How they operate iii. How cheaters attempt iv. How they detect cheaters f. Here the situation didn’t facilitate collusion, but DID facilitate oligopolistic market g. RANGE OF MARKETS i. Competitive ii. Oligopolistic (tacit collusion) iii. Collusive iv. Monopolistic h. Court calls this a natural oligopoly i. FTC said it was tacit collusion i. §5 can’t punish mere tacit collusion because that would mean that firms couldn’t use information on competitors’ pricing j. Must have TACIT COLLUSION and PLUS FACTORS that create an anticompetitive agreement H. Conspiracies to Monopolize 1. Virginia Vermiculite v. WR Grace & Co. p. 257 a. Grace donated stuff to environmental societies b. Env. group is trying to preserve the land, ends the market c. Grace is using this as a competitive tool even though the env. group is involved d. Conspiracy is between Grace and the env. group, even though they’re an innocent party – all the plaintiffs have to show is that Grace is a large player and is using it in an antitrust way for multiform violation to kick in i. DON’T need to show intent e. For single firm violation, more of a showing is required – intent needed f. Can still have multifirm violation even though only one is acting 20
2. Mid Michigan Radiology a. Exclusive provider of radiology services b. Monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize, et.c alleged c. For section 4 of clayton act, show injury to competition, not to individuals and have standing (best group to bring claim) i. No injury to mkt here and more efficiency in production-fewer bckg. Checks IV. VERTICAL RESTRAINTS A. Definition

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture