Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 46
ANTITRUST LAW
46-1A. Antitrust laws
The independents alleged violations of the Sherman Act (and various state laws). They con-
tended that the Southwestern Bell Corp. had orchestrated an effort to extend a monopoly of the
46-2A. Robinson-Patman Act
The federal district court issued a judgment in Stelwagon’s favor, and Tarmac appealed. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in part that Stelwagon established a prima facie
violation of price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act. The appellate court explained
46-3A. Restraint of trade
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the coaches and issued a permanent injunc-
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 46
46-4A. Tying arrangement
The court found that PIC had breached its contract with MCA and had infringed MCA’s copy-
rights, and awarded MCA damages. As for PIC’s antitrust claim, the court found that the con-
tract for “Harry” was an illegal tying arrangement, a per se violation of the Sherman Act, and not
enforceable. The court concluded, however, that PIC was not entitled to damages. Both parties
46-5A. Attempted monopolization
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of Intel. First, the court pointed out that MVL
and Intel did not compete in the market for USB interconnect devices. Second, there was “no
evidence that Intel’s participation in the USB-IF and the drafting of the [USB] Specification con-
46-6A. Monopolization
The court ruled that “USTC’s pervasive practice of destroying Conwood’s racks and POS mate-
rials . . . through exclusive agreements with and misrepresentations to retailers was exclusion-
ary conduct without a sufficient justification, and that USTC maintained its monopoly power by
46-7A. Restraint of trade
The court concluded that Visa and MasterCard’s exclusionary rules were anticompetitive, in vio-
lation of the Sherman Act, because they restricted the ability of Amex and Discover to compete
in marketing their services to banks. The court ordered the rules revoked and permanently en-
46-8A. Sherman Act
The court ruled in Dentsply’s favor, and the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, which reversed the ruling. The appellate court concluded that Dentsply’s
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 46
exclusivity policy, with respect to its restrictions on its dealers’ product lines, violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act. To show that an exclusive-dealing arrangement, such as the one between
Dentsply and its dealers, is being used to maintain a monopoly illegally, the government must
46–9A. Tying arrangement
Yes, there is a tying arrangement, but it is not illegal. To violate the law, the seller of the tying
46-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. Assuming that the lawyers had attempted and exhausted all alternative means of con-
vincing the District of Columbia to increase their compensation, the attorneys had only three op-
tions: (1) they could do nothing and continue working for the same compensation, (2) they could
2. You may or may not agree that the lawyers’ boycott should be an expression protected
under the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court, however, concluded that it
3. One could argue that the SCTLA’s boycott was in effect a “strike” against the District of
Columbia conducted for the purpose of increasing compensation. The fact that strikes by un-
ions are legal and group boycotts by trade associations are illegal is significant legally and politi-
