Reasoning There was not sufficient evidence for the application of a per se

Reasoning there was not sufficient evidence for the

This preview shows page 4 - 7 out of 9 pages.

Reasoning:There was not sufficient evidence for the application of a per se ruling.Answers to the questionsCritical ThinkingThe court overruled the Schwin decision because the Schwin case did not have as much evidence to 47-4
Image of page 4
Chapter 47 - Antitrust Lawsupport the court's decision as this case. Here, there it a demonstrable economic effect, which in thiscase, allowed Sylvania to act as it did. In addition the court felt that each case needed to be considered individually rather than forcing each to comply with a main general rule. The courts overruling seems to make logical sense in that more proof is offered, assuming that a demonstrable economic effect is enough proof, to support the overruling. It would seem that as more factual evidence that was available, it would lead to a better ruling.Ethical Decision MakingDepending on what I valued I may act differently or the same. If I valued financial security, meaning that it is the goal of every business to make money so that it may grow and prosper, then I'd probably act similarly. The reason is that if I apply the universalization test, I'd understand that other businesses were doing the same thing because they too value financial security. However, if I valued compassion, meaning keeping and maintaining friendly relationships, then I would not act the same because it would jeopardize my relationship with Continental. If every business started to act the same, the world would not be the kind of place I'd like to live.Case 47-2 Pepsico, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, 315 F.3D 101 (2002).Case BriefIssue:Does Coca-Cola’s IFD policy requiring “loyalty” and prohibiting “conflict of interest” violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act?Facts: PepsiCo is challenging Coca-Cola’s IFD policy, alleging it violates the Sherman Act.Procedural History: District court granted Coca-Cola’s motion for summary judgment. PepsiCo appealed.Holding: Affirmed.Reasoning:PepsiCo must establish that Coca-Cola engaged in predatory or anti-competitive conduct with a specific intent to monopolize, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power.The relevant geographic market is the United States.The relevant product market consists of “products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced—price, use and qualities considered.”PepsiCo defines the relevant market as the “market for fountain-dispensed soft drinks distributed through [IFDs] throughout the United States.” PepsiCo wanted to narrow this definition to “large restaurant chain accounts that are not ‘heavily franchised’ with low fountain ‘volume per outlet.’” PepsiCo failed to provide evidentiary support for its market definition restricted by distributor and customer.47-5
Image of page 5
Chapter 47 - Antitrust LawAnswers to the questionsCritical ThinkingThis case demonstrates the ambiguity of the word “market.” PepsiCo has a vested interest in defining the “market” in a way that prohibits Coca-Cola’s marketing plan.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Spring '12
  • StanFreeman
  • Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law, Tying

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture