Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Improving the Product.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The EU Microsoft Decision Aryeh Friedman AT&T Corp.
Advertisements

Robber Barons vs. Captains of Industry
Regulation & Deregulation
Is Microsoft guilty of illegal tying? þ A crucial question to be decided in the DOJ case against Microsoft is this: Did the company leverage its dominant.
SG Amicus Brief in Trinko *Views are the personal views of the presenter only and are not necessarily those of his employer.
Chapter 45 Antitrust Law. Introduction Common law actions intended to limit restrains on trade and regulate economic competition. Embodied almost entirely.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Refusals to Deal.
Types of Courts American Government. Standing  In order for a case to be heard in our legal system, the plaintiff must have standing to sue  This means.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Valuing Litigation.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Tests for a Monopoly.
Managerial Economics-Charles W. Upton Special Selling.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton The Economics of Monopoly.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Predatory Pricing.
Computers in Society The Computer Industry: Open Source.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton The Litigation Process.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton The Basic Test.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Tie in Deals. Tie In Deals.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Legal Institutions.
High Technology Industries: Competitive Issues and the Microsoft Case.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton More on the Share Test.
Chapter 11 – The federal court system
Chapter 11 The Federal Court System
Sherman Act Section 2 Committee Hot Topics in Monopolization Law “Section 2 in the Antitrust Division” J. Bruce McDonald March 31, 2005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Brooke Group LTD v Williamson Tobacco (1993) Basic Facts: For 18 months, Brown Williams Tobacco (B&W) wages.
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4. Slide 2 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 7, Section 4 Objectives 1.Explain how firms might try to increase.
Regulation and Deregualtion. Market Power Monopolies and oligopolies control prices, and output. Will often drive other competitors out of the market.
1 C H A P T E R 14 1 © 2001 Prentice Hall Business PublishingEconomics: Principles and Tools, 2/eO’Sullivan & Sheffrin Market Power and Public Policy:
Maintenance of Monopoly
Monopoly. Monopoly Monopoly is when the market is dominated by a single seller Monopoly is when the market is dominated by a single seller –They can take.
THE RISE OF BIG BUSINESS
Public Policy in Private Markets Monopolization (section 2, Sherman Act)
American Monopolies. Economic Definition Sole supplier of a product w/no substitutes – Only Nike shoes, McDonalds food, Saddlebred clothes, Dell computers,
Antitrust Policy & Regulation If the slide has a green background: you are responsible for content If the slide has an all red background, you are not.
Analysis of U.S. versus Microsoft. 2 Some Background 1990 Federal Trade Commission begins investigating Microsoft’s marketing practices, including bundling.
1 Announcements: Tuesday Breakout sections: the DeBeers case Next week: the Dupont case Remember to take Quiz 1 on Oncourse.
Practical application of industrial economics: Antitrust Law November 24, 2008 By Kinga Guzdek.
Kevin J. McNeely McNeely IP Law Washington, DC SANDARDS & PATENTS.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4. Slide 2 Copyright © Pearson Education, Inc.Chapter 7, Section 4 Introduction When does the government regulate.
Lower Federal Courts. Federal District Courts U.S. divided into 94 districts Each state has at least one district. Large states like Texas, California.
Regulation & Deregulation Government can make sure that one company does not dominate the market. How? Through antitrust laws starting with the 1890 Sherman.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2002 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Chapter 38 Antitrust.
Entry and Exit New firm (Bill Porter develops E*TRADE) Diversifying firm (Microsoft offers Internet Browsers)
Chapter 5 – The Court System. Trial Courts  Trial Courts – listen to testimony, consider evidence, and decide the facts in disputed situations  Plaintiff.
Anti-Competitive Behavior Monopolies (Ch. 15) & Oligopolies (Ch.17)
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
The Case against Microsoft. © 2004 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved12-2.
Market Structures Chapter 7. Get a Sheet of paper out ► List the following on a half sheet of paper:  Three favorite cereals  Three favorite brands.
Market Structures Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4.
Judicial Branch Interpret the Laws Uphold the Constitution Judicial Review- the power of the Supreme Court to review laws and acts and declare them unconstitutional.
Antitrust Policy & Regulation
Case Studies: Microsoft and Apple (Gates and Jobs)
Chapter 32 Antitrust.
Regulation & Deregulation
Regulation & Deregulation Chapter 7 Section 4
Chapter 24: Governing the States Section 4
Monopoly and Antitrust Laws
Precedent Key points.
Robber Barons vs. Captains of Industry
Chapter 7 Section 4.
The Lower Courts Ch 11 sec 2.
Review Slides – Unit 3 Chapter # Questions
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4
Chapter 7: Market Structures Section 4
The Case against Microsoft
The Supreme Court of the
COE 390 Seminar By Dr. Aiman Al-Maleh Group Presentation.
Robber Barons vs. Captains of Industry
Presentation transcript:

Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Improving the Product

Can a Monopoly Improve Its Product? Berkley Photo IBM Microsoft

Improving the Product Berkley Photo Kodak had come up with a new type of film and made it available in a format that would only fit Kodak cameras.

Improving the Product

Berkley Photo Kodak had come up with a new type of film and made it available in a format that would only fit Kodak cameras. The court found that Kodak had no duty to pre- disclose. –If it had to pre-disclose, firms could "free ride" on Kodak's R and D efforts. –Second, the administrative of deciding when pre- disclosure was required would be burdensome.

Improving the Product

IBM Peripherals New IBM computers rendered the products of rival manufacturers of peripheral unworkable.

Improving the Product

IBM Peripherals New IBM computers rendered the products of rival manufacturers of peripheral unworkable. –IBM products were superior to their existing models. –IBM had no duty to come out with a system for the benefit of their competitors.

Improving the Product

Microsoft Microsoft built a monopoly in Operating Systems for personal computers. –Allowable –The right product at the right time –Dealings with IBM

Improving the Product Microsoft Microsoft built a monopoly in Operating Systems for personal computers. It then developed Internet Explorer, and essentially killed the market for Netscape –Netscape used to charge. –Microsoft gave it away, forcing Netscape to match strategy

Improving the Product

Microsoft relied on Kodak and IBM precedents claiming that was merely improving its product. Part of Government anti-trust case, with allegation that Microsoft was trying to eliminate a competitor.

Improving the Product Microsoft relied on Kodak and IBM precedents claiming that was merely improving its product. Part of Government anti-trust case, with allegation that Microsoft was trying to eliminate a competitor. In trial, Judge Jackson ruled against Microsoft, but Appeals Court reversed Jackson and ordered the issue retired. DOJ dropped issue rather than retry it. Microsoft paid AOL-Time Warner (who bought Netscape) $750 million to settle issue.

Improving the Product End ©2004 Charles W. Upton