Search

Lower courts have long struggled to interpret and apply the professional baseball antitrust exemption created by the Supreme Court. Some courts have interpreted the antitrust exemption broadly, and others have interpreted it very narrowly. Given the MLB's recent potentially anticompetitive behavior related to sports data, it could find itself facing an antitrust suit. This Note suggests that district courts should adopt a narrow interpretation of the baseball antitrust exemption and argues that even under the broadest interpretation of the baseball antitrust exemption, the actions of the MLB do not fall within the scope of the exemption. This Note also argues that the collection and distribution of sports data is an independent industry wholly collateral to the game of baseball and, therefore, outside the scope of the professional baseball antitrust exemption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the exclusionary or predatory conduct of antitrust law's single firm proscription. Topic discussed include introduction of the Sherman Act aimed to codify common law at the federal level, rules defined as per the antitrust law regarding single-firm conduct, and decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case 'Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co.' concerning antitrust law and monopolization.

The article focuses on antitrust law decision making in the Roberts Court, which describes the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts beginning in 2005. Information is provided on U.S. antitrust regimes, economic competition, and competitive injury suits. Information is provided on price fixing and interbrand competition.

The article reports that the District of Hawaii granted the franchisees' motion to dismiss the franchisor's antitrust claims because the franchisor failed to plead sufficiently a relevant market. It is mentioned that the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the test as to the accuracy of the relevant market should be conducted at summary judgment or at trial.

This Note explores various theories of patent misuse as they relate to patent pools. Taking into account varying ideological underpinnings of misuse, this Note proposes a framework for rule of reason analysis of anticompetitive foreclosure of alternative technologies. The framework offers a phased analysis, borrowed from antitrust law, to focus the inquiry on the harms patent misuse seeks to deter in patent-pool licensing practices. The goal of the proposed framework is to increase operational clarity to modern, innovative firms and provide guidance to courts when applying rule of reason analysis to determine whether anticompetitive foreclosure could result from a challenged use of a patent pool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the relationship between antitrust law and industry-specific regulation in the U.S. After briefly discussing the historical collaboration between antitrust and regulatory law, it explores the cases that show skepticism toward antitrust intervention in regulated industries. It offers a framework for evaluating the application of antitrust law to regulated industries. The article turns to regulatory gaming as an example of behavior that justifies antitrust oversight of regulated markets.

The article explores the consent decree process which causes the breakup of U.S.-based telecommunication company, AT&T Inc. In this paper, the issues that the author address in his book "Antitrust Consent Decrees in Theory and Practice: Why Less is More," are tackled. The book indicated that the more ambitious the decree, the worse matters are likely to turn out. It is concluded that an interconnection approach is not the hallmark of a competitive market, but would have functioned better than the complex schemes of regulation that have controlled telecommunications in the U.S.

The article examines whether the antitrust and trade regulation should be combined through comparing the outcome in the case, U.S. versus AT&T Inc. to the similar U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Verizon Communications Inc. versus Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko in 2004 in the U.S. It is noted that comparing and reviewing the cases imply a radical change in the relationship between competition law and regulation law. In the first case, courts applied antitrust law to regulated industries, while in the second case, the Supreme Court claimed that the benefits of antitrust enforcement in the presence of regulatory authority were minimal.

The article presents information on the court case, Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, which explored antitrust law violations governing bundled discounting in the U.S. Based on the case, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a hospitals deep discounts to insurers for making it their sole preferred provider for all hospital care services constituted anticompetitive behavior in violation of section two of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It notes that the Sherman Act prohibits an attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States. The case also contends that, while the court correctly noted that a market-based test which finds bundled discounts presumptively illegal is too broad, so too is the cost-based discount attribution standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit.

The article discusses issues on predatory buying and the application of antitrust laws in the U.S. It explores the basic economics of monopsony and monopoly and their economically parallel antitrust treatment options. It also examines monopsony as a predatory buying concept wherein buyers pay high prices to eradicate competition from input purchasers. Moreover, it highlights the theoretical basis of acquiring monopsony power by setting unilateral price and the approach of the Supreme Court in resolving the predatory pricing case involving Brooke Group Ltd.

The article discusses the legal developments and the economic arguments that preceded the judgment involving Leegin company. It outlines the Court's verdict in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. It examines the effects of Internet on the opposing pro- and anticompetitive principles presented for minimum resale price maintenance (RPM), an agreement between retailers and suppliers fixing a minimum resale price. It explores how the Court might have used those developments to craft a more modified rule. The author reflects the desire of business enterprise to control prices that guard brand image and to defend retailers from Internet competition makes RPM a more valuable tool for manufacturers than it was in the past, a fact that largely disregarded by the Court.

This article offers information on various court cases on antitrust policy under Judge John Roberts in the U.S. In such cases, Roberts competently assess claims of commercial predation and expresses its fears on the cost of erroneous findings. In Twombly case, the Court is skeptical about the ability of lower courts to resists drawing "false inferences" in lawsuits involving charges of tacit collusion among oligopolists while in Credit Suisse, Roberts doubts the ability of tribunals to refrain from making unusually serious mistakes. Discussed are the details of the issue.

This article discusses the implication of Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the lawsuit Twombly vs. Bell Atlantic Corp. in the U.S. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the incumbents' parallel restraint was evidence of collusion and violated the section 1 of Sherman Act. It reveals that the first element of Twombly complaint was addressed by the Trinko decision wherein the Court ruled that failure to fully cooperate with competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) did not expose the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC). Discussed are the details of the lawsuit.

The article details the case, Leegin Creative Products v. PSKS, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a nearly 100-year-old doctrine that prohibited vertical resale price restraints. It discusses the background and practice of vertical resale pride maintenance and its economic effects. It then analyzes the underlying economic rationales the Court embraced to reach its decision in Leegin, and the shift in antitrust jurisprudence from finding such restraints per se illegal to holding them subject to a rule of reason. It provides factors for future courts to apply in cases involving re- sale price restraints, given the reliance concerns on the historic doctrine that prohibited them.

The article presents additional developments related to the antitrust law in the U.S. It reviews the Supreme Court's other landmark antitrust case from October Term 2006, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which changes federal pleading standards. It also provides an analysis of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) approval of the Google/DoubleClick merger in December 2007 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's decision to vacate an FTC finding that memory-chip maker Rambus Inc. violated the antitrust laws by allegedly deceiving a standard-setting organization.

This article provides information on the development of the case of Texaco v. Dagher. The Supreme Court has stated in Dagher that it is not unlawful price-fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act 2 for a fully-integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its own products. According to the author, the plaintiffs-respondents that there was more to the case than appears from the Court's opinion, contrary to what might appear from the opinion, the respondents did in fact file a brief in the Supreme Court.

This article presents a perspective on the case of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. The structure of the decision of the court reflects its focus on policy. After determining that Dr. Miles is bad antitrust policy, the Court concluded that considerations of "stare decisis" do not require a different result. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy posed the question as whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason.

The article presents the case Kristian v. Comcast Corp. in the U.S. According to the author, the plaintiffs have filed a claim against Comcast for alleged violations on both state and federal antitrust law, by attempting to control prices through participating in anticompetitive practices. In addition, they have claimed that Comcast has engaged in conducts that prevent or interfere with competition.

The article presents a discussion on the case of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Arch Coal Inc. in its alleged anticompetitive acquisition of Triton Coal Co. It examined the FTC's review of Arch Coal's Triton acquisition and discussed jurisdictional aspects of enforcement. It also analyzed substantive differences on evidence of a proposed fix and discussed policy implications for those impacted by antitrust enforcement.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP," which created a change on the monopolization law stated in the Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case requires a lot of procedural grounds to support the court's decision. Despite of the absence of particular approach in resolving the uncompetitive conduct among monopolized businesses, the Telecommunication Act played a vital role to arrive at a decision.

The article criticizes the Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The author argues that by relying on faulty assumptions about the regulated industry limits the scope of antitrust enforcement. He also asserts that the decision contradicts both the outcome in the case "United States v. AT&T" and the theory on which that case rested.

The article presents a discussion on the controversies brought about by the Supreme Court's decision on "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." One of the controversies involves the difference between antitrust laws with that of regulations based on functionality and doctrines The failure of judges to consider the existing telecommunications policy for the case is examined.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The decision has attracted several attentions in compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required the exchange carrier to provide access to its network to other firms which seek to provide telephone service locally. The case provide thoughtful contributions to the continuing debates over the pronouncement on monopolization law under section two of the Serman Act.

The article informs that largely in connection with the Microsoft litigation, the antitrust enforcement authority of state attorneys general in the United States, in the parens patriae capacity, has generated acrimonious debate. Perhaps the only point of genuine agreement is the complaint over the lack of reliable empirical evidence on state antitrust enforcement. This article attempts to make a modest contribution to the data front and a more ambitious and provocative contribution to the theoretical debate.