Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) Basic Facts: Dr. Miles sold medicines through 400.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Price Squeezes after Trinko Aryeh Friedman. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945) Judge Hand held that Alcoa, a vertically integrated company.
Advertisements

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Some Horizontal “Rule of Reason” Special Factors “Rule of Reason” analysis essential in select cases. Complete.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin©2007 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 Antitrust Law-Restraints of Trade.
Law and Economics-Charles W. Upton Legal Background.
Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. Jentz Miller Cross BUSINESS.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Chapter 46 Antitrust Law.
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. Antitrust Law.
 Section 1 of Sherman Act regulates “horizontal” and “vertical” restraints.  Per Se vs. Rule of Reason.  Per Se violations are blatant and substantially.
US Antitrust Limitations on Patent Licensing Bruce D. Sunstein Bromberg & Sunstein LLP Boston © 2008 Bromberg & Sunstein LLP.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists (1986) Basic Facts: Indiana Dental Assoc., comprised of 85% dentist.
COMMISSION For The SUPERVISION Of BUSINESS COMPETITION The REPUBLIC Of INDONESIA REGIONAL ANTITRUST WORKSHOP ON ABUSE OF DOMINANCE.
The Economics of Minimum Resale Price Maintenance Robert Willig Princeton University Competition Policy Associates (COMPASS)
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Scenario 1: Basic Facts Year: 1893 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Two major cement contractors – Smith and Jones.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 16 Oligopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western BETWEEN MONOPOLY AND PERFECT COMPETITION Imperfect competition refers to those.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA) General Rule: Sherman 1-7 not apply to “conduct.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Standard Oil Co. of California v. U.S. (1949) Basic Facts: Justice Department challenged Standard Oil contracts.
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 Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Med South: FTC 2002 Advisory Opinion Basic Facts: Med South is for-profit entity formed by a large group.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake The Big Powerful “Innocent” Oligopoly The situation: 1.Market has few players, all successful. A “Shared.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (Sup. Ct. 1967) What had happened to Schwinn’s market share? Three.
Antitrust Kim C. Stanger Compliance Bootcamp (5/15)
Criminal Antitrust Practice Donald C. Klawiter J. Clayton Everett, Jr. Jennifer M. Driscoll.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Brooke Group LTD v Williamson Tobacco (1993) Basic Facts: For 18 months, Brown Williams Tobacco (B&W) wages.
Antitrust Law—Restraints
ASME C&S Training Module C10 LEGAL ISSUES C1. Conflict Of Interest/Code Of Ethics C2. Antitrust C3. Torts C4. Intellectual Property C5. Speaking For The.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Competitor Foreclosure Arrangements 1.Tying Cases – To get this, you must buy that. 1.Exclusive dealing.
Antitrust. “Is there not a causal connection between the development of these huge, indomitable trusts and the horrible crimes now under investigation?
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Assoc. (1990) Base Facts: Boycott by D.C. trial lawyers who demanded higher.
 “Market power” is the power of company to control the market for its product.  The law does allow for market monopolies when a patent is issued. During.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Hospital Corp of America v. FTC (7 th Cir. 1987) Basic Facts: Hospital Corp, owner of one hospital in Chattanooga,
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 Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (Sup. Ct. 1984) Basic Facts: Exclusive contract between hospital.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Cartel Per Se Analytical Process Suspect category (price, boycott, market division)? Rule of Reason - Market.
1 The basic notion of any discussion of legal issues in marketing: You probably need legal advice before implementing any marketing plan Before marketing.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines (D.C. Cir. 1986) Basic Facts: Deregulation of moving industry.
Vertical Trade Restraints I. Introduction and definitions II. Resale price maintenance III. Nonprice restraints IV. Summary.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Patent Pooling What is patent pooling? When is patent pooling anticompetitive? Can others be excluded from.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. AT&T (D.D.C. 1981) What products did Western Electric provide Bell Operating Companies?
What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts relate to each other? What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts.
ECONOMICS CHAPTER 6. CharacteristicsPerfect Competition # of Firms In Each Industry Many Market ConcentrationLow Type of ProductSimilar or Identical Availability.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. (Sup. Ct. 1967) What had happened to Schwinn’s market share? Three.
Chapter 46 Antitrust Laws and Unfair Trade Practices
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station.
Business Law and the Regulation of Business Chapter 43: Antitrust By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Chapter 23 Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices.
Standards Anti-Trust Compliance Briefing August 31, 2004.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 26 Antitrust and Monopoly.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Assoc. (1990) Base Facts: Boycott by D.C. trial lawyers who demanded higher.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
CHAPTER 38 Antitrust.
PowerPoint Slides to Accompany ESSENTIALS OF BUSINESS AND ONLINE COMMERCE LAW 1st Edition by Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 21 Antitrust Law Slides developed.
Customized by Professor Ludlum December 1, 2016
Public Policy to Promote Competition
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake
Class 7 Antitrust, Winter, 2018 Applying the Rule of Reason
Public Policy to Promote Competition
US Antitrust Limitations on Patent Licensing
Section 30.1.
Public Policy to Promote Competition
Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices
Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill RETAILERS’ ASSOCIATION Health Portfolio Committee, 6 August 2008.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake
Presentation transcript:

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) Basic Facts: Dr. Miles sold medicines through 400 jobbers and 25k retailers, specified price for products and required wholesalers to sell only to authorized dealers. Park acquired medicines cheap and sold at discount. Dr. Miles sued on interference with contract, and Park claimed restrains illegal under antitrust. What was Dr. Miles secret process argument? Any validity? Does right to sell or not sell confer right to impose conditions on sale? What is restrain on alienation? What business justification would Dr. Miles have for fixing resale price?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (Sup. Ct. 1980) Basic Facts: Cal. Statute prohibited wine wholesalers from selling below posted prices. Violators fined and lost license to sell. Violator sued for injunction. Cal. Ct of App. held scheme violated Sherman Act. Retailers, desiring price protection, appealed to Sup. Ct. What was argument for state immunity under Parker v. Brown? Why did immunity claim fail? What was 21 st Amendment argument? Did state’s policy protect retailers or reduce consumption of alcohol? How did state’s interest compare with national interest of competition under Sherman Act?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Colgate & Co. (Sup. Ct. 1919) Basic Facts: Colgate set uniform prices for products, gathered data on dealers who did not adhere to uniform prices, and terminated business with such dealers. Dist. Ct. quashed indictment. Was there any agreement? Did Colgate demand agreement that retailers honor uniform prices? Is Court’s decision consistent with Dr. Miles? As to Colgate, if no monopoly issue, a manufacturer is free to exercise discretion as to whom he will deal.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1960) Basic Facts: Park Davis, large manufacturer and seller of pharmaceuticals, published minimum price list, actively secured consent of big retailers, then cut off all those who didn’t follow pricing guidelines. Program forced compliance by all parties. Why did Parker fall outside of “limited dispensation” of Colgate? Was there much of Colgate left after Parker? How would you advise Client? As to Parker, Ct. said product comes in “competition free wrapping – by virtue of concerted action induced by the manufacturer. The manufacturer is thus the organizer of a price-maintenance combination or conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act.”

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. (1984) Basic Facts: Monsanto, with 15% share of herbicide market, terminated distributor agreement with Spray-Rite, a wholesale distributor who bought large quantities and sold at discount. Spray-Rite alleged Sherman 1 violation. What program had Monsanto adopted? Was Spray-Rite big Monsanto distributor? How important was Monsanto to Spray-Rite? What was basis of Spray-Rite’s Sherman 1 claim? What had jury decided? What was alleged error on appeal?