Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
65. The power-buyer defense to antitrust allegations says that a merger that increases the concentration of market
power is not anticompetitive so long as purchasers are large, sophisticated, and have bargaining power.
a. True
b. False
66. In U.S. v. Baker Hughes, the power-buyer defense was used to show that the defendant illegally monopolized its
market, and was subject to treble damages under the Sherman Act.
a. True
b. False
67. A horizontal restraint of trade occurs when the businesses involved are on the same level of operation and work
together to limit competition.
a. True
b. False
68. An example of a horizontal restraint of trade is a cartel, such as OPEC.
a. True
b. False
69. OPEC, the oil cartel, has been held not to violate the antitrust laws because of the power-buyer defense.
a. True
b. False
70. EU antitrust law applies to U.S. businesses that do business in Europe.
a. True
b. False
71. The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S. are growing closer together.
a. True
b. False
72. The antitrust standards of the European Union and the U.S. have been growing further apart in such things as
exclusive dealing and territorial restrictions.
a. True
b. False
73. The Supreme Court has held horizontal price fixing to be per se illegal in every antitrust case.
a. True
b. False
74. Price fixing is generally considered to be the worst violation of antitrust law.
a. True
b. False
75. In U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, a group of sanitary potters successfully argued that reasonable price-fixing
agreements were legal.
a. True
b. False
76. In U.S. v. Trenton Potteries, the Supreme Court held that the defendants' price-fixing agreements were legal
under a rule of reason analysis because they resulted in lower prices for consumers.
a. True
b. False
77. In general, price fixing among competitors is per se illegal.
a. True
b. False
78. In Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing Services to set prices
together was permissible under a rule of reason because the quality of service increased substantially because of
the cooperation.
a. True
b. False
79. In Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing services to join services
together and to set prices together was illegal per se.
a. True
b. False
80. In Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors the court held that for the Multiple Listing Services to join services
together and to set prices together was illegal under a rule of reason analysis because the defendant failed to show
how it helped the market.
a. True
b. False
81. The Supreme Court held it to be legal, under a rule of reason in the Broadcast Music case, for the rights to play
copyrighted music to be sold under a blanket licensing agreement that prevented negotiation over fees.
a. True
b. False
82. Since 1942, the Supreme Court has held exchanges of information are per se legal because they promote the
efficient operation of the market.
a. True
b. False
83. The Supreme Court has held the sharing of price information to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
a. True
b. False
84. In U.S. v. United States Gypsum Co., involving the sharing of price information by members of an industry with
each other, the Supreme Court held that exchanges of information are per se illegal.
a. True
b. False
85. Generally, it is legal to share price information, so long as it is done openly.
a. True
b. False
86. In Todd v. Exxon Corp. the court held that a group of oil companies could share salary information because it was
public information that was available to all parties.
a. True
b. False
87. In Todd v. Exxon Corp. the court held that a group of oil companies may have engaged in an illegal conspiracy to
share salary information in an anticompetitive manner.
a. True
b. False
88. In Todd v. Exxon Corp. the court held that a group of oil companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to share
salary information so that all persons whose salaries were affected could sue for damages.
a. True
b. False
89. In FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, the Supreme Court held that First Amendment freedom of speech
allows the Federation to recommend to dentists that they not submit patient records to insurance companies.
a. True
b. False
90. The main issue in FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists was that of information sharing with the public about
the price of dental services.
a. True
b. False
91. A horizontal market division occurs when businesses on different levels of industry agree to share a geographic
market or market territory.
a. True
b. False
92. Agreements intended to provide horizontal customer or territorial allocations may violate antitrust laws.
a. True
b. False
93. Vertical restraints of trade concern contracts among buyers and sellers at the same level of business.
a. True
b. False
94. Vertical restraints of trade concern contracts among buyers and sellers at different stages of business operations.
a. True
b. False
95. A company that performs more than one function internally, (e.g. manufacturing and distributing) is subject to
antitrust violations if the internal operations are a vertical arrangement.
a. True
b. False
96. Vertical price fixing is mainly concerned with the costs manufacturers incur on product development.
a. True
b. False
97. When retailers agree to sell a product at a price set by the producer there is resale price maintenance.
a. True
b. False
98. In Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park, the Supreme Court ruled that a supplier cannot control the price at
which a product is resold by a retailer.
a. True
b. False
99. Among the groups usually favoring resale price maintenance agreements are small retailers and producers of well-
known products.
a. True
b. False
100. Large retailers such as Wal-Mart are most likely to oppose resale price maintenance.
a. True
b. False
101. Firms that make high quality or unique products are more likely to oppose resale price maintenance.
a. True
b. False
102. Vertical maximum price fixing is generally legal under the antitrust laws.
a. True
b. False
103. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Supreme Court held that maximum vertical price fixing
controls that results in lower prices for consumers are legal.
a. True
b. False
104. In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Supreme Court overturned the old rule from Dr. Miles
Medical v. John D. Park and Sons case concerning resale price maintenance.
a. True
b. False
