DROBAK ANTITRUST SPRING 2021
ANTITRUST OUTLINE:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Intent is relevant, but good intent will not save an otherwise illegal agreement
  - Because the purpose/intent was for a valid public purpose, the Court will not use per se illegal analysis
  - This is usually not relevant, but the Court is deferential to some entities when they serve public purpose
  - The price was also not static, they were just evening the price so farmers would not have to sell below market when big corporations came in at the end of the day - price was still set by buyers & sellers
  - 价格也不是一成不变的，他们只是将价格拉平，这样当大公司在一天结束时进场时，农民就不必以低于市场的价格出售--价格仍由买卖双方确定
  - Trenton Potteries: (price fixing)
  - Agreement to fix toilet bowl prices between of the market
  - Court said this is per se illegal
  - The Court refused to consider any intent or reason
  - "a reasonable price today may not be a reasonable price tomorrow"
  - What is this a per se rule?
  - If the effect is depressing the competition or hurting the market prices, then the intent is irrelevant
  - Price is so important to the market that it deserves protection
  - Sekondi Vacuum: (per se illegal price-fixing)
  - This case is at the end of the depression, after Appalachian Coal

Appalachian v. Sekoni:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Small oil companies violate the state pro ration rule and they do not have storage facilities for it
  - so, after they take it out of the ground, they sell it to other gas companies that they have deal with
  - they are purchasing the excess oil on the market so that the price of oil will go back up because there will no longer be over capacity
  - 他们购买市场上过剩的石油，这样油价就会回升，因为不再会出现产能过剩的情况
  - They are not directly fixing the price, but they are manipulating market to affect price, so this is "price fixing" still
  - Court believes they are intentionally trying to drive prices back up, and anything done with intent to increase price should be per se illegal
  - 法院认为，他们是在故意抬高价格，任何意图抬高价格的行为本身都是非法的。
  - Purpose and power to fix prices do not necessarily violation the Sherman Act
  - Conspiracies under Sherman Act are not dependent on any overt act, other than conspiring a conspiracy to fix prices
  - Even if the company has no way to actually fix prices on the market, they can still violate the Sherman Act
  - Joint venture price fixing:
  - Texaco v. Dagher (Price-fixing agreement of joint venture)
  - Joint venture of Exxon and Shell - both selling the same gasoline at the same price
  - The government approved the joint venture
  - This price fixing is OK because the government approved the joint venture this makes the price-fixing ancillary to the government approved venture
  - 这种操纵价格的行为没有问题，因为政府批准了合资企业，这就使操纵价格行为成为政府批准的合资企业的附属行为。
  - *This is different from Three Tenors because the gas stations are pooling all resources and risk to do the joint venture and there was government approval
  - 这与 "三个 Tenors "不同，因为各加油站将所有资源和风险集中起来进行合资，而且得到了政府的批准。
  - If they sold gas under a new name, joint venture would have lost all consumers and it would not have been as profitable despite being one company
  - 如果他们以新的名称销售天然气，合资企业就会失去所有消费者，而且尽管是一家公司，利润也不会那么高。
  - The point of the joint venture was to bring both companies together but not change the name

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Rule: parent corporations & wholly owned subsidiaries cannot conspire in violation of antitrust
• There must be two independent centers of information/decision making to conspire against antitrust
• What ? In tax law, if you own you file consolidated return - so, maybe this is enough? Court has never said. Drobak thinks anything over is enough
  什么是 ？在税法中，如果您拥有 ，您就可以合并申报 - 因此，也许这就足够了？法院从未说过。德罗巴克认为只要超过 就足够了。

- Boycott/refusal to deal

• Fashion Originators Guild: (Boycott)
• Fashion originators form a "guild" which is a group of designers/factories that ban together to boycott style pirates to prevent them from stealing their original designs
  时尚原创者组成 "公会"，即一群设计师/工厂，共同抵制风格盗版者，防止他们盗用自己的原创设计。
• Basically, if any distributor of any brand in the guild sold style pirate products, the guild would no longer supply to them
• They also agreed with manufacturers to not sell them any fabric or supplies, and if they did, the guild would boycott them as well
  他们还与制造商达成协议，不向他们出售任何织物或用品，如果他们出售，公会也将抵制他们的产品
• There were thousands of designers in the guild, so they could not afford to lose them on either end - manufacture or seller - so style pirates were SOL
  公会里有成千上万的设计师，因此他们不能在制造或销售两端都失去设计师，所以风格海盗就诞生了。
• Consumers benefitted from style pirates because it created competition and kept prices down
• Court said per se illegal
• Each firm could do this on their own, but not in agreement together Court does not consider that they are trying to protect their trade secret because (1) per se violation and (2) there are other remedies for this that do not include antitrust violations
  每家公司都可以单独这样做，但不能达成一致 法院不认为他们是在试图保护自己的商业秘密，因为 (1) 本身就是违法行为，(2) 对此还有其他补救措施，不包括违反反垄断法的行为
• Broadway Hails v. Klors (Boycott)
• Klors is an appliance store and next door is a larger appliance store, Broadway Hails
• Broadway hates Klors and gets manufacturers not to sell appliances to them Klors says this is a boycott and sues
• Broadway tries to argue that this had no effect on consumers, and it only hurt Klors
• The court said that is not the point, the point is to prevent hurting competition
• Even though it did not have a huge effect on consumers, it hurt the consumers who shop at Klors
• It is still a way of eliminating competition, which is per se illegal
• This case highlights, is it about protecting competition or competitors?
• In US it is supposed to be competition, but you cannot have competition without competitors
• Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc.: Beer distribution case
• The distributors ban together against trade coupons
• They can still compete on price - however, the court focuses on time value of money - it effectively raises price for all bar customers, even though they can still compete on money
  他们仍然可以在价格上进行竞争--然而，法院关注的是资金的时间价值--这实际上提高了所有酒吧客户的价格，尽管他们仍然可以在资金上进行竞争
• However, there is no guarantee that the bars will lower their price to compete therefore, the distributors are fixing a component of the price, which is price-fixing
  然而，并不能保证酒吧会降低价格参与竞争 ，因此，分销商是在固定价格的一部分，这就是操纵价格。
• Price-fixing is not necessarily setting a price it is tinkering with price in any way in process, discount, competition, etc.
• This includes quantity say changing hours of grocery store
• Cannot enter into an agreement to change hours, even for the sake of workers, you can do this outside of an agreement, but it is unlikely because the store would lose competition to those who did not do so
  不能签订更改工作时间的协议，即使是为了工人的利益，您可以在协议之外这样做，但不太可能，因为商店会在竞争中输给那些不这样做的商店
• The Court condemned an agreement among beer wholesalers to eliminate a short-term trade credit that many of them had formerly given to retailers. Under the agreement the wholesalers would sell only if the buyer paid before or at the delivery. The effect of the agreement was to standardize the price
  法院谴责了啤酒批发商之间的一项协议，该协议取消了许多批发商以前给予零售商的短期贸易信贷。根据该协议，批发商只有在买方在交货前或交货时付款的情况下才能销售。该协议的效果是统一了啤酒的价格。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

- Modified per se rule for boycotts:

• Northwest Wholesale Stationary v. Pacific:
• The court narrowed the per se treatment of boycotts
• Per se illegal boycotts must fit within a boycott that involves joint effort by firms to disadvantage competitors by either directly denying, persuading or coercing suppliers/customers to deny relationships the competitors needed
  本身就是非法的抵制行为必须符合抵制的范围，即企业共同努力，通过直接拒绝、说服或胁迫供应商/客户拒绝与竞争对手建立所需的关系，从而使竞争对手处于不利地位。
• Rule of reason boycotts - all other boycotts are analyzed under the rule of reason
• Northwest Wholesale was not denying a competitor and input or output
• If they do not have a dominate position or market power, then it does not affect consumers and court is not concerned
• Consumers have other ways to gain access to the product
• Investigated whether a buyer's cooperative that expelled a member without providing procedural or administrative recourse had violated antitrust law. Expulsion was not a group boycott, as Pacific made no showing of being denied customers or goods.
  调查一家买方合作社在未提供程序或行政追索权的情况下驱逐一名成员是否违反了反托拉斯法。驱逐不属于集体抵制，因为太平洋公司没有表明被剥夺了客户或商品。
• Associated Press v. US
• AP set up membership agreement that both prohibited selling news to nonmembers as well as limited new memberships. There were provisions for punishment of those who did not conform to the agreement.
  美联社制定了会员协议，既禁止向非会员出售新闻，也限制新会员加入。协议还规定了对不遵守协议者的惩罚措施。
• The court found market power and refusal to deal

- Outlier professional case: (Boycott)

• Superior Court of Trial Lawyers: (outlier case for professionals)
• 1,200 lawyers agree to represent indigent offenders, but only 100 participate because prices were so low
• The 100 lawyers boycott until they are given a pay raise - the pay raise ends up happening because the court is in a crisis
• They get sued for antitrust violation
• They argue that by doing this they actually helped competition because more people will enter the market if the pay is better
  他们认为，这样做实际上有助于竞争，因为如果薪酬更高，就会有更多的人进入市场。
• Court disagrees, and says this is still per se illegal
• The court said this caused a collapse of the market
• Despite being professionals, they do not get rule of reason. The court said this is a per se violation
• While we have pay concerns, we cannot economically support market collapse

- Tying arrangements

• Eastman Kodak v. Image Tech Services, Inc.:
• Kodak manufactures and sells copiers and film equipment
• Kodak sells parts and provides services for its equipment & manufactures some equipment internally, while other parts are ordered from OEM
  柯达为其设备销售零部件和提供服务，并在内部制造某些设备，而其他零部件则从原始设备制造商处订购。
• There is NO cross-compatibility of parts between Kodak's equipment and its competitor's equipment
• ISOs began selling parts for Kodak equipment and offering repairs and maintenance services at a lower price than Kodak
• In response, Kodak refused to sell replacement parts to buyers who used ISO for servicing Kodak equipment and made it difficult to obtain Kodak equipment
  作为回应，柯达拒绝向使用 ISO 维修柯达设备的买家出售替换零件，并使其难以获得柯达设备
• As a result, ISOs went out of business
• ISOs bring suit against Kodak for violation of 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
• Under section 1, they claim that Kodak unlawfully tied the sale of parts and services for Kodak equipment
• A tying arrangement is unlawful when the seller has considerable market power in the market for the tied product, and a large portion of the market if affected by the arrangement
  当卖方在被搭售产品的市场中具有相当大的市场支配力，且大部分市场受到该安排的影响时，搭售安排即为非法。
• Kodak argues that it does not have considerable economic power in the subsidiary market for parts and services, because the primary market for equipment is highly competitive
  柯达辩称，它在零部件和服务的附属市场上没有相当大的经济实力，因为设备的主要市场竞争激烈
• However, the Court said Kodak failed to provide compelling evidence that competition in the primary market for parts and services, and there is evidence that Kodak has used its power to exclude competition from the subsidiary market, given that so many ISOs were forced
  然而，法院称，柯达未能提供令人信服的证据证明零部件和服务的一级市场存在竞争，而且有证据表明柯达利用其权力排除了附属市场的竞争，因为如此之多的 ISO 被强迫进入附属市场。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Under section 2, Kodak has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the subsidiary market
• Kodak argues that a single brand cannot be considered a market for the purposes of an antitrust violation
• However, the Court says that there is no legal presumption that a single market, and here, relevant market so specific to Kodak's equipment
  但是，法院认为，法律上并不存在这样的推定，即单一市场（这里是指柯达设备的相关市场

- US v. Microsoft Corporation

• Microsoft began a sales practice of bundling its web-browsing software, internet explorer, with operating system software (Windows)
  微软开始将其网络浏览软件 Internet Explorer 与操作系统软件（Windows）捆绑销售
• At the time, Microsoft had marker power in the market for operating system software, but faced competition in the market for web-browsing
  当时，微软在操作系统软件市场上拥有绝对优势，但在网络浏览市场上却面临着竞争。
• The US brought suit alleging that Microsoft bundling practice was an unlawful tying arrangement
• Holding
• If the seller possesses market power in the market for the tying product and only sells the tying product alongside the tied product, a buyer desiring the tying product is forced to also purchase the tied product
  如果卖方在搭售产品的市场上拥有市场支配力，并且只在销售搭售产品的同时销售搭售产品，那么需要搭售产品的买方就会被迫同时购买搭售产品。
• Market power exists if a seller can force a buyer to behave in a way that the buyer would not behave in a competitive market
• Generally, this is per se illegal
• However, not all tying arrangements are anticompetitive because of the bundling of products can offset restraint of trade by creating efficiencies for sellers and reducing transaction costs
  然而，并非所有的搭售安排都是反竞争的，因为捆绑产品可以为卖方提高效率，降低交易成本，从而抵消贸易限制。
• Here, the Court failed to consider the special circumstances surrounding technology integrated products
• The efficiencies claimed by Microsoft are achieved through the integration of Microsoft's program and allowed increased functionality for third party platforms and convenience for consumers
  微软声称的效率是通过整合微软的程序实现的，允许第三方平台增加功能，为消费者提供便利
• This appears to be a regular practice in the market for software platforms, even among firms that lack market power

QUICK LOOK/RULE OF REASON

• Quick look/rule of reason analysis:
• (1) alleging anticompetitive conduct on one side of a simultaneous transaction platform must show that the net effect of the restraint on competition was negative, taking into account both sides of the market
  (1) 指控同时进行的交易平台中一方的反竞争行为，必须证明考虑到市场双方的情况，限制对竞争的净影响是负面的
• rule of reason begins we have to determine how "obvious" it is to determine if you do (1) at all
• (2) has initial burden of showing that the challenged restraint has a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant market
  (2) 须承担初步责任，证明被质疑的限制措施具有实质性反竞争效果，损害了相关市场的消费者利益
• This is where you might have to show market power if the effect is not apparent at first
• If you can show anticompetitive effect, then you do not have to look at market power
• (3) if carries the burden, the burden shifts to to show a procompetitive rationale for the restraint
• (4) if makes this showing, then the burden shifts back to to demonstrate that the procompetitive efficiencies could be reasonably achieved through less anticompetitive means
  (4) 如果 能够证明这一点，那么责任就转回到 ，即证明可以通过反竞争程度较低的手段合理地实现有利于竞争的效率。
• One of the two most important factors in the rule of reason in information exchange is the structure of the industry involved
  在信息交流的理性规则中，两个最重要的因素之一是所涉及的行业结构

• (1) relevant market is defined/market power is determined
• (2) analyze the structure of the market to determine if it is susceptible to the exercise of market power through tacit coordination
  (2) 分析市场结构，确定其是否容易通过默契协调行使市场支配力
• Usually, highly concentrated
• However, just because the market is not highly concentrated does not preclude the possibility of collusive activity
• Where the market power is exercised by buyers, it is the elasticity of sellers' supply that is at issue
• Sellers's supply could be elastic, if they have the option of withholding some output from the market in hopes of higher prices in future years
  卖方的供应可能是有弹性的，如果他们可以选择从市场上扣留一些产量，以期望在未来几年获得更高的价格的话
• If the goods are perishable, short-run supply may be inelastic
• Labor is extremely perishable and inelastic

- Quick Look:

- Dental Federation:

• refused to send insurance companies copies of patient x rays
  - Court applies quick look, why?
  - Here, it is a boycott not directed at competitors and is not obviously "anticompetitive"
  - The dentists are withholding something from the market that consumers want Not price-fixing, but restraint
  - The court takes a look at market power
  - It is a small number of dentists, but it is highly concentrated in a small area giving them significant market power in those areas
  - 虽然牙医人数不多，但高度集中在一个小区域，使他们在这些区域拥有巨大的市场支配力
  - If you can show anticompetitive effect, then you do not have to look to market power
  - Usually to see the anticompetitive effect, you have to look at market power
  - If you can see the anticompetitive effect without looking at market power, then there is no need to fully analyze it however, they must have market power to have a detrimental effect on consumers
  - 如果不看市场支配力也能看到反竞争效应，那么就没有必要对其进行全面分析 但是，它们必须拥有市场支配力，才能对消费者产生不利影响。
  - Restraint possible effect market power that will make possible effect a reality
  - The court says withholding information harms the market
  - Dentists defend themselves by arguing that they did this to ensure quality care
  - The court rejects this for the same reason in Engineer's case only considering economic reasons
  - The court also said it pays the insurance companies to make good decision for their clients because the people have the opportunity to switch insurance if they are unhappy/do not think they are getting quality care
  - 法院还表示，保险公司有义务为客户做出正确的决定，因为如果人们不满意/认为他们没有得到优质的医疗服务，他们有机会更换保险。
  - Amex (shows issues with the quick look)
  - If it is not obviously anticompetitive the burden begins with the
  - If it is obviously anticompetitive, it begins with the showing reason for the conduct
  - Reasonable minds can differ on what is "obviously" anticompetitive and what is not
  - How obvious is it? That is what the judge decides when analyzing and determining the per se illegal or rule of reason and where to start
  - 有多明显？这就是法官在分析和确定本身违法或合理规则时的决定因素，以及从何处着手
  - Beginning to the rule of reason:
  - Standard Oif is the "birth" of rule of reason
  - The purpose of Standard Oil agreement was to direct and control the flow of petroleum into the hands of a narrowed group of refiners
  - 标准石油公司协议的目的是引导和控制石油流向少数炼油商手中
  - The court finds that Rockefeller was wrong. His goal was to drive out competition and this was not a normal mode of doing business; he was - Dentists are not doing this to make more money - but maybe? Engineers were obviously doing it to make more money, but here it is unclear. The court still says they will not consider the quality argument
  - 法庭认为洛克菲勒错了。他的目标是赶走竞争者，这不是正常的商业模式；他是--牙医这样做不是为了赚更多的钱--但也许是？工程师这样做显然是为了赚更多的钱，但这里还不清楚。法院仍表示不会考虑质量论点
  - However, there is also competition amongst insurance companies and they dentists are withholding information from the market - therefore, it is different from engineers in that way
  - 然而，保险公司之间也存在竞争，牙医对市场隐瞒信息，因此，在这方面与工程师不同。

- Engineers:

• The society banned competition between the engineers - the engineers attempt to bring an ethical defense, and how without a restraint on competition, it would cause public safety issues
  社会禁止工程师之间的竞争 - 工程师们试图从道德角度进行辩护，说明如果不限制竞争，会如何引发公共安全问题
  - The Court says no, it must be an economic reason
  - Ethics are irrelevant because engineers are already held to a professional standard
  - Safety and public policy are not a part of economic analysis
  - Sometimes ethics may be required to regulate and promote competition, but here there was no restraint necessary to do so
  - Raising price & quality is always arguable in public policy, but that is for the public to decide what they value more - price . quality
  - 在公共政策中，提高价格和质量总是有争议的，但这要由公众来决定他们更看重什么--价格 . 质量。
  - Professionals usually get the rule of reason because some professions require restraints 19
  - Under this analysis, only economic reasons are considered - you cannot argue that competitiveness is bad
  - Under Sherman, competition is ALWAYS good - so the justification must always be procompetitive
  - Horizontal restraints:

- Three Tenors: (Horizontal restraint of trade)

• Joint venture between Polygram & Warner for the 3 tenors 3rd performance at the world cup
• They agree to not discount the first and second performances before the third performance
• They each owned respectively if the joint venture advertises either then it effects the personal profits of each individual company because they do not jointly own the past performances
  他们分别拥有 如果合资企业为其中任何一家公司做广告，都会影响到每家公司的个人收益，因为他们并不共同拥有过去的业绩。
• You cannot limit products/prices to help the joint venture
• However, if you don't do this - one person in the venture will "free ride" off of the other advertisements
• The court says there is no pro-competitive reason for this restraint - they only focused on the possible "spill over" and free riding, which the Court does not agree with
  法院认为，这种限制没有任何有利于竞争的理由--他们只关注可能的 "溢出 "和搭便车现象，但法院对此并不认同
• The court said this would open to door to allow limited competition for all products, not just one product to help the joint venture if they allowed this to happen
  法院表示，如果允许这种情况发生，将为所有产品（而不仅仅是一种产品）的有限竞争敞开大门，以帮助合资企业。
• "frontal attack on the basic policy of the Sherman Act" BMI v. CBS: Does the conduct of ASCAP fall within the per se violation of price fixing? This is not always an easy answer, so the court sets out guidelines for determining if an agreement falls under the "per se" violation
  BMI 诉哥伦比亚广播公司案 "对《谢尔曼法》基本政策的正面攻击"：ASCAP 的行为是否属于操纵价格的本身违法行为？这并不总是一个简单的答案，因此法院列出了确定协议是否属于 "本身 "违法行为的准则
• Example: Two hardware stores agree to divide the product market aka not sell the same products. One sells hammers, the other doesn't etc. They enter into a "joint venture" in a building but agree to not sell the same products. This is product market division which is illegal per se
  举例说明：两家五金店同意划分产品市场，又称不销售相同的产品。一家卖锤子，另一家不卖，等等。两家五金店在一栋楼里成立了 "合资企业"，但同意不销售相同的产品。这就是产品市场分割，本身就是非法的。
• However, suppose these are small stores in a huge city with a lot of competition? Does this still effect the market?
• Yes. This is still product market division and per se illegal. But, as a defense, they would argue that the building is essential to being strong competitors and they cannot do it without the ancillary restraint on products because they need to make more money to afford the building, which they would not be able to afford without the product restraint
  是的，这仍然是产品市场分割，本身就是非法的。但是，作为辩护，他们会辩称，要想成为强有力的竞争者，建筑是必不可少的，如果没有对产品的辅助限制，他们就无法做到这一点，因为他们需要赚更多的钱才能买得起建筑，而如果没有产品限制，他们就买不起建筑。
• the court said this would fall under rule of reason, and not per se illegal - in complete contrast to three tenors.
• So, it is pro-competitive, but the market is still restrained
• Drobak thinks it is not fair to say that a company cannot stop pushing products to become more competitive in the market
• Music industry blanket license - between the artists, the blanket license is anticompetitive because it is the same fee for every artist
  音乐行业的一揽子许可--在艺术家之间，一揽子许可是反竞争的，因为每个艺术家都要支付相同的费用
• The industry is literally price-fixing, but the industry is set up to where blanket licenses are the only way to enforce the patent on the songs
  该行业实际上是在操纵价格，但该行业的设置使一揽子许可成为实施歌曲专利的唯一途径
• If they had to go to the owners for every song, they would have to contact them all the time, etc.
• It would literally be inefficient to negotiate/set up a contract for each individual song/royalty because it is stream-lined between two brokers
  为每首歌/每项版权进行谈判/签订合同的效率很低，因为它是在两个经纪人之间流水作业的
• for price fixing to be "per se" illega/it must be plainly anticompetitive AND very likely without redeeming virtue
• This design has strong economic benefits and allows it to fall under rule of reason despite literal price-fixing 21
• The blanket license here is composed of the individual compositions, plus the aggregating service
• Whole is greater than the part
• It is marketable package due to the convivence and efficiency
• Blanket fee amount is to be determined under the rule of reason under remand

- Parallel pricing/standing:

• Conscious parallelism is there enough evidence to go to jury and show there is an agreement?
  - There must be enough evidence showing agreement that the jury verdict will not be overturned on appeal
  - Parallel pricing alone is NOT enough
  - It must be parallel pricing PLUS something else showing an agreement
  - The issue is showing an agreement just because price is the same does not mean that it is the same through collusion
  - Sharing price information may be a plus-factor when considering a pricefixing claim under the Sherman Act (See Todd v. Exxon)

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Example: two gas stations they are located across the street from each other, and the owners meet every morning for breakfast and after they set the same prices for the day. Is that enough?
  例如：两家加油站隔街相望，店主每天早上一起吃早饭，吃完早饭后，他们就会确定当天的价格。这就够了吗？
• Maybe. Drobak said it depends. If it was every week and they met on Fridays, and then on Fridays they changed the prices, that might be enough to assume they were discussing it but if it is a small town and they are childhood friends, etc., then it is likely they are just parallel pricing without agreement. All depends on the circumstances
  也许吧。德罗巴克说，这要看情况。如果他们每周都见面，然后在周五更改价格，这可能足以认定他们是在讨论 ，但如果是在一个小镇上，而且他们是儿时的朋友等，那么他们很可能只是在没有达成一致的情况下平行定价。一切取决于具体情况
• Smaller firms are more oligopoly tendent than bigger firms
• Example: the court previously held that parallel conduct plus going to same trade association meeting and the court said that was not enough
  例如：法院之前认为，平行行为加上参加同一行业协会的会议，法院认为这还不够
• Twombly requires facts that show smoke and jury decides fire for antitrust you need evidence showing smoke and jury decides if there is fire
  Twombly 法案要求事实显示烟雾，然后由陪审团决定是否起火 反托拉斯法则要求证据显示烟雾，然后由陪审团决定是否起火
• Mitucha:
• Court said there was not enough evidence of material facts
• Agreement was highly unlikely to be able to have an agreement there were so many moving parts and it did not make economic sense
  达成协议的可能性极小 有太多的因素在起作用，在经济上不合理
• Basically, it would have been 21 Japanese firms losing money in USA to drive out USA manufactures BUT they allege that they are overpricing so much in Japan that they are able to pay for the underpricing in America
  基本上，在美国亏损的 21 家日本公司会将美国制造商赶出美国 ，但他们声称，他们在日本的定价过高，因此能够为美国的定价过低买单。
• Court said this does not make sense because the market shares were different across Japan & USA markets
• Thus, the companies were taking of loss in USA but only gain in Japan no economic sense
• Possibly other reason than economic but under antitrust, the assumption is, all firms act like rational economic actors
• This assumption fails when companies act irrational

- The Sherman Act prohibits collusion, but does NOT force companies to compete

• Therefore, they do not have to compete with price

- Sharing price information:

• Sharing price information can be a "plus factor" when considering a price-fixing claim under Sherman Act
  - Standing alone, sharing price information is not per se illegal
  - This is governed under the rule of reason
  - Pro-competitive vs. anticompetitive effects?
  - Todd v. Exxon: (Oligopsony) 22
  - Sharing information between 14 companies in the oil industry about price of labor
  - This causes salary to be depressed because all competitors are getting together and setting price, employees cannot go to other companies and ask for more money
  - 这就造成了工资的低迷，因为所有的竞争对手都在一起定价，员工无法去其他公司要求更高的薪水。
  - These jobs require industry specific skills, so the workers are unable to move to other industries
  - If they shared the information about salary publicly, it would not be "price sharing"
  - However, sharing price to manipulate the market is illegal
  - Court said that this is likely a price-fixing case because of the agreement, but pled information sharing, so the Court looked at it under the rule of reason instead of per se violation
  - 法院表示，由于存在协议，这很可能是一起操纵价格案件，但 承认信息共享，因此法院根据合理规则而非本身违反规则来审理此案。
  - If the pled price-fixing, this would have likely been per se illegal
  - Court must consider the structure of the industry and the nature of the information exchanged
  - The nature of the data, who has access, how it is exchanged
  - The relevant criteria to determine the nature of the information exchanged is:
  - Time frame of the data
  - Exchanges of current price information has the greatest potential for generating anti-competitive effects and although not per se illegal have consistently been held to violation the Sherman Act - alleges exchanged past and current salary information, as well as future salary and budget information
  - 当前价格信息的交流最有可能产生反竞争效果，尽管其本身并不违法，但一直被认为违反了《谢尔曼法》 - 指控 交流了过去和当前的工资信息，以及未来的工资和预算信息。
  - The specificity of the information
  - Price exchanges that identify particular parties, transactions and prices are viewed as potentially anticompetitive because they may be used to police a secret or tacit conspiracy to stabilize prices
  - 确定特定当事人、交易和价格的价格交流被视为潜在的反竞争行为，因为它们可能被用于监督稳定价格的秘密或默契合谋。
  - Whether the data is made publicly available
  - In sum, the information exchanged here weighs against the motion to dismiss, and arouses suspicion of anticompetitive activity under the Rule of Reason
  - 总之，在此交换的信息不利于驳回动议，而且根据 "合理规则"，令人怀疑存在反竞争活动。
  - 22 schools on the east coast would meet to discuss "overlap students" to make sure they came up with the same amount of need that the parents actually needed to lower the need whenever they could
  - 东海岸的 22 所学校将开会讨论 "重叠学生 "问题，以确保他们提出的需求量与家长实际需要的需求量相同，从而尽可能降低需求量。
  - Parents might disclose a second home to one school and not another, so the schools to make sure they all had the same value of need if the student applied to more than one of the 22 schools
  - 如果学生申请了 22 所学校中的多所学校，家长可能会向一所学校而不是另一所 学校透露第二处住所，因此学校要确保他们的需求值相同。
  - The schools compete with quality of education, facility, work study, tuition, scholarship, etc.
  - Everyone was agreeing on financial need and tuition price
  - Need is a component of price, so this seems like price-fixing, but the court uses the rule of reason
  - Based on spreading the need of scholarship money, you are buying a greater social economic variety of students and could offer more scholarships to more people because they would not be giving merit scholarships - they would only be giving scholarships for those based on need of the students who had great credentials
  - 在分散奖学金资金需求的基础上，您可以购买更多社会经济类型的学生，并为更多的人提供更多的奖学金，因为他们不会提供优秀奖学金--他们只会为那些根据需求提供奖学金的学生提供优秀的证书
  - The Court overturns the quick look analysis for the rule of reason analysis because the school needs deeper analysis surrounding the "greater good" of
  - 法院推翻了 "快速审视 "分析法，转而采用 "合理性规则 "分析法，因为学校需要围绕 "更大利益 "进行更深入的分析。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• There is no obvious limitation on revenue or output, so the court wants to take a deeper look at what is going on
• Is MIT limiting output/admission of fewer student through this policy?
• No, it is possible to keep the class size the same even with the Overlap policy/meeting
• However, the money will be spread differently amongst applicants, but not limiting the number of students admitted
• Evidence showed that the mix of students changed, but not the #

- Settlements:

- FTC v. Actavis, Inc.:

• Reverse payments agreements are the type of agreements occurring between patented brands and generic brands
  - Rule: a settlement agreement among patent owners may violate antitrust law, even if the anticompetitive effects are within the exclusionary scope of the patent
  - 规则：专利所有人之间的和解协议可能违反反托拉斯法，即使反竞争效果在专利的排除范围之内
  - Do these agreements unreasonably diminish competition in violation of antitrust laws?
  - Yes, a settlement agreement among patent owners may violate antitrust law, even when anticompetitive effects are within the exclusionary scope of the patent
  - 是的，专利所有人之间的和解协议可能违反反托拉斯法，即使反竞争效果在专利的排除范围之内
  - Here, the settlement agreement between Actavis and Solvay has the potential for significant anticompetitive effects, as Solvay is the social justifications and turned it into an economic interest
  - 在此，阿特维斯与索尔维之间的和解协议有可能产生重大的反竞争影响，因为索尔维将社会理由转化为经济利益

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Moreover, the payout is so large, it cannot be explained by traditional settlement justifications, which strongly suggest that the real motive is to maintain monopoly
  此外，赔付金额如此之大，无法用传统的和解理由来解释，这强烈表明真正的动机是为了维持垄断地位
• Dissent:
• The exclusionary rights granted to patent owners are an exception to antitrust law, and any settlement within the exclusionary scope of a patent should not be subject to antitrust law
  授予专利所有人的排他性权利是反托拉斯法的例外，任何在专利排他性范围内的和解都不应受到反托拉斯法的约束
• The dissent views the payout as a way to get a competitor to respect the validity of its patent & believes this ruling will reduce settlements in patent litigation and give less incentive for generic drugs to enter the market
  反对意见认为，赔付是让竞争对手尊重其专利有效性的一种方式，并认为这一裁决将减少专利诉讼中的和解，降低仿制药进入市场的积极性。
• Updating the rule of reason:
• California Dental Association v. FTC:
• the court held that if a practice is potentially pro-competitive, then a fullblown market analysis is required, and the plaintiff has the burden to show that the restraint is anti-competitive. Often this means having to show that the defendant has "market power" - i.e., the ability to profitably raise price above competitive levels.
  法院认为，如果一种做法可能有利于竞争，那么就需要进行全面的市场分析，原告有责任证明这种限制是反竞争的。这通常意味着必须证明被告具有 "市场支配力"，即有能力将价格提高到竞争水平之上并从中获利。
• In the world "quick look," the defendant must show a pro-competitive reason for the action. In rule of reason, the plaintiff must show an anticompetitive effect. The rule of reason is where we are today.
  在 "快速审视 "的世界里，被告必须证明其行为具有有利于竞争的理由。在理性规则中，原告必须证明反竞争效果。理性规则就是我们今天的处境。

GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY:

• State action:

- Parkerv. Brown

• State of CA passed laws creating a cooperative marketing program for raisins and implemented competition restrictions (reducing output) and pooled funds to stabilize the market. was a packer and producer of raisins whose
  加利福尼亚州通过法律建立了葡萄干合作营销计划，并实施竞争限制（减少产量）和汇集资金以稳定市场。 是葡萄干的包装商和生产商，其葡萄干的包装和生产均由加利福尼亚州政府负责。
  business was harmed by this. The Court found that the Sherman Act was designed to regulate private conduct, not public action.
  - States are immunized from federal antitrust laws
  - Elements of Parker immunity:
  - (1) state policy that compels anticompetitive conduct and
  - A company may collude to lobby the government to delegate anticompetitive conduct, as long as they are lobbying government, and not private actor
  - 只要是游说政府，而不是游说私人行为者，公司就可以串通起来游说政府委托其实施反竞争行为
  - The Court thinks of the government as a "barrier" to make sure that it is not unreasonably harming consumers - also, the public can turn to the poles if they are unsatisfied with the conduct
  - 法院将政府视为 "屏障"，以确保其不会对消费者造成不合理的损害--同时，如果公众对行为不满意，也可以向两极求助
  - Giving companies the ability to merge is NOT delegating anticompetitive conduct - there are ways to merge a corporation without being anticompetitive
  - 赋予公司合并的能力并不是将反竞争行为的权力下放--有很多方法可以在不反竞争的情况下实现公司合并
  - Merge not sufficient to be state delegation because not inherently anticompetitive
  - Zoning/billboard regulation = sufficient to be state delegation because that is inherently anticompetitive
  - (2) state supervises any anti-competitive conduct
  - If the STATE actor delegates a PRIVATE company the authority to maintain something that is usually the duty of the state, then you need STATE supervision
  - 如果国家行为者授权私营公司维护通常属于国家职责的东西，那么就需要国家监督
  - However, if it is the state actor doing the action, you do not need the state supervision because it is inherent in the act
  - Influencing the government:
  - Noer.
  - Lobbying the public to vote for state rules with trucking taxes
  - They do so by lying or over exaggerating the issue to the public - The Court held that if you lie in an adjudicative process, you lose immunity because you are creating fear in the public to lobby against legislature in Court
  - 他们的做法是向公众撒谎或过分夸大问题--法院认为，如果你在裁决过程中撒谎，你就会失去豁免权，因为你在公众中制造恐惧，从而在法庭上游说反对立法机构。
  - You can exaggerate outside of the judicial proceeding/lie in politics, but you cannot lie in court proceedings and probably not to state actors
  - 你可以在司法程序之外夸大其词/在政治上撒谎，但你不能在法庭程序中撒谎，可能也不能对国家工作人员撒谎
  - Bribing is also OK under antitrust laws there are criminal laws for this, the Court does not want to be involved in the way a Court is ran/corruption
  - 根据反垄断法，行贿也是可以的 ，对此有刑事法律规定，法院不希望卷入法院的管理方式/腐败中。
  - Publicizing things is OK because no effects occur until someone lobbies the legislature because you are not "to the government yet"
  - 公布事情是可以的，因为在有人游说立法机构之前不会产生任何影响，因为你还不是 "政府的人"
  - The government is the middleman between anticompetitive laws and the effect of public - they rely on the government to be the "reason" and prevent negative effects
  - 政府是反竞争法律与公众效应之间的中间人--他们依靠政府的 "理智 "来防止负面效应的产生
  - If the government does something that harms the public, the public can turn to the polls and vote them out
  - Preventing the use of plastic conduit by "stacking" the meeting and all voting against the regulation
  - The meeting was an "association" that made the rules that the State adopted basically, they were a government actor, but they were a strong influence on the government, so pretty much whatever they held, passed at the State level
  - 该会议是一个 "协会"，负责制定国家通过的规则 ，基本上，他们是 一个政府行为者，但他们对政府有很大的影响力，因此，几乎他们举行的任何活动都会在国家层面获得通过
  - Allied Tube followed all of the rules of the association
  - The court said that they packed the house for a personal reason, not because of the effect it would have on the safety of the public
  - 法院说，他们收拾房子是出于个人原因，而不是因为会对公众安全造成影响
  - The motivation behind their actions were purely anticompetitive
  - Noerrimmunity did not apply because it was not a state actor - it was a private association that strongly influenced the state
  - Noerr 豁免并不适用，因为它不是国家行为者--它是一个对国家有重大影响的私人协会
  - The court gives them rule of reason - but this does not pass under it context of the issue
  - If it was about preventing toxic fumes, it might be OK under rule of reason, but it was purely economic
  - A publicity campaign would be even if it is deceptive
  - Packing a meeting is if it is the legislature, but if it is a private company and the motivations are a deceptive practice, it is NOT OK
  - 如果是立法机构，包装会议是 ，但如果是私营公司，而且动机是欺骗性的，那就不行了
  - The Court views it as
  - Lobbying association government public
  - So, this change in line-up from previous cases creates a new form of barrier, with the government no longer acting as the initial barrier to the public - rather, the association is the barrier, which is an issue with the Court
  - 因此，与以前的案件相比，这种阵容上的变化创造了一种新形式的障碍，政府不再是公众最初的障碍--相反，协会才是障碍，这是法院的一个问题

SHERMAN AcT § 2 MONOPOLY:

• Unilateral actions by a firm to acquire or to maintain monopoly power are addressed in section 2 of the Sherman Act
• Section 2 does not forbid mere possession of monopoly power and does not proscribe monopolies resulting from superior product, business skills, or historical accident.
  第 2 条并不禁止仅仅拥有垄断权，也不禁止因产品、业务技能或历史偶然因素而产生的垄断。
• Definition:
• The Sherman Act only outlaw's intentional monopolization - requiring proof of possession of monopoly power in a relevant market and the intentional acquisition or maintenance of the power through anticompetitive conduct
  谢尔曼法》只将蓄意垄断定为非法--要求证明在相关市场中拥有垄断势力，并通过反竞争行为蓄意获取或维持该势力
• Prima Facie for a monopoly claim the elements are:

• Under for attempt/conspiracy to monopolize you must show:

- Anticompetitive conduct/exclusionary acts

• Boycott
• Lorain Journal v. US
• Klors v. Broadway Hale Stores
• Discriminatory Pricing
• Union Leader Corp
• Refusal to deal
• Eastman Kodak v. Southern Photo
• FTC v. Raymond Bros-Clark Co

- Specific intent to monopolize

Dangerous probability of success in monopolizing in relevant market

• Market power/market definition
• There has to be likelihood of ability to monopolize, i.e., market power is likely not enough, but market share is likely enough

- Relevant market

• The relevant market is the area of effective competition for the , must be measured and defined in order to assess monopoly power
  相关市场是 的有效竞争区域，必须加以衡量和界定，以评估垄断势力
• This inquiry required definition of the relevant product market and the relevant geographic market

- Relevant product market

• Consumer preferences and the extent to which consumers find other goods and services reasonably interchangeable - thus, if other goods are thought by consumers to be interchangeable, the good will generally be included in the relevant market
  消费者的偏好以及消费者认为其他商品和服务在多大程度上可以合理地互换--因此，如果消费者认为其他商品可以互换，则该商品一般会被纳入相关市场
• Single-branded markets - Supreme Court has held that a single brand or service can be a relevant market, although this theory is controversial
  单一品牌市场--最高法院认为，单一品牌或服务可以是相关市场，尽管这一理论存在争议

- Relevant geographic market

• The relevant geographic market is the area in which competing sellers sell or consumers practically turn to for substitute goods (there may be submarkets within a general geographic market)
  相关地域市场是指相互竞争的销售商销售或消费者实际购买替代商品的地区（一般地域市场中可能存在次级市场）
• Monopoly power within market
• This is the power to control prices or exclude competition in the relevant market

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Firms in monopoly or oligopoly markets possess some degree of market power, as compared to firms in competitive marker structures
  垄断或寡头垄断市场中的企业与竞争结构中的企业相比，拥有一定程度的市场支配力
• “measuring market power"
• Alleged monopolist has presently captured is the prime factor examined by courts - although not the sole determinate
• Generally, share in excess of is strongly suggestive of monopoly power, whereas a market shares below is not enough

- Other factors:

• Barriers to entry
• Another determination of market power is whether there are significant barriers to new firms that wish to enter into the market
  市场支配力的另一个判断标准是，对希望进入市场的新公司是否存在重大障碍
• A market share was held not to constitute a monopoly where there were no barriers to entry
• Also, lack of future market potential such that a company will no continue to dominate the market precludes the finding of a monopoly
  此外，由于缺乏未来市场潜力，一家公司将无法继续主导市场，这也排除了垄断的认定。

- Purposeful act requirement

• Because the mere possession of monopoly power alone is insufficient to constitute a violation of , some additional act or conduct is required before a violation will be found.
  由于仅仅拥有垄断权不足以构成对 的违反，因此在认定违反行为之前，还需要一些额外的行为或举动。
• The additional purposeful act will be found if the has engaged in predatory or exclusionary conduct to acquire or maintain monopoly
  如果 从事掠夺性或排他性行为，以获取或维持垄断地位，则可认定为额外的有目的行为。
• Caution: deliberate or purposeful acts to not include monopoly power resulting from superior skill, foresight, or industry or that which is thrust upon a person because of market conditions - note that specific intent to monopolize is not require
  注意：蓄意或有目的的行为不包括因高超技能、远见或行业而产生的垄断权，也不包括因市场条件而强加给某人的垄断权--注意不要求有垄断的具体意图
• Examples of anticompetitive conduct
• Exclusionary conduct that eliminates competition
• Predatory pricing - below-cost pricing where has a dangerous probability of recouping they money it lost
• Foreclosing distribution channels
• Bundled rebates
• Anticompetitive denial of access to an essential facility
• A firm with monopoly power cannot cancel existing deal in a manner that reinforces or increases the firm's monopoly power refusal to deal is not precluded conduct**
  具有垄断实力的公司不能以加强或增加公司垄断实力的方式取消现有交易 拒绝交易不排除行为**
• Monopsony power
• § 2 applies to monopoly power exercised on the side of the buyers

- Defenses:

• Innocently acquired
• Natural monopoly

- Attempts to monopolize

• §2 also prohibits attempts to monopolize. A must prove that a has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with a specific intent to monopolize, and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power
  §第 2 节还禁止企图垄断。 必须证明 参与了掠夺性或反竞争行为，具有垄断的具体意图，以及实现垄断权的危险可能性。
• Aggressive competition is NOT illegal under this

- Conspiracy to monopolize

• Conspiracy is covered under and
• Section 1 prohibits conspiracies in restraint of trade
• Section 2 conspiracy requires proof that the parties were consciously committed to the anticompetitive scheme

- IP & duty to license

• Monopolist desire to exclude others from protected IP is presumptively valid justification for any harm to consumers
• Plaintiff may rebut by showing evidence that monopolists acquired IP rights illegally, by showing pretext (look to employees' state of mind), and sham litigation
  原告可通过出示垄断者非法获取知识产权的证据、出示借口（调查雇员的心理状态）和虚假诉讼进行反驳

Overview of issues:

• Predatory Pricing
• Below cost pricing
• With intent (section 2 needs intent) and/or effect (section 1, not intent needed) of eliminating competition
• With a likely prospect of recoupment through monopolistic (supra-competitive) pricing later, once competitors are gone
• Tying Arrangements:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• When you take a product that has a dominant market position (the tying product) and condition the sale of the tying product upon simultaneous purchase of another product that has a weaker market position (the tied project)
  当您购买一种具有市场支配地位的产品（搭售产品），并以同时购买另一种市场地位较弱的产品（搭售项目）作为销售搭售产品的条件时
• There are different elements to establish a tying claim:
• Are there two distinct products?
• Is there market power in the tying product?
• Is there foreclosure (a forcing effect) on the purchaser to take the tied product preventing purchase of a competing product?
• Does the tying relationship between the goods have the effect of reducing competition through increasing the market power of the seller?
  商品之间的搭售关系是否会通过增强卖方的市场支配力来减少竞争？
• Does the activity at issue have relation to interstate commerce?
• Essential facilities doctrine
• Attempts to monopolize:

1. The defendant had a specific intent to achieve monopoly;
2. That it acted in an anticompetitive manner designed to injure its actual or potential competition; and
3. There was a dangerous probability that monopoly power would in fact be achieved.

DEFINING RELEVANT MARKET:

Relevant Market:

• Alcoa:
  - Should the Court include ingot production and sales in the market definition?
  - The court concludes that we should use the production over the sales because if Alcoa wants to, they can sell more to the market because they have produced it - whatever Alcoa wants to sell to the market is up to them
  - 法院的结论是，我们应该使用生产量而不是销售量，因为如果美国铝业公司愿意，他们可以向市场出售更多的产品，因为他们已经生产出了这些产品--美国铝业公司想向市场出售什么都由他们自己决定
  - What do we do with the secondary market ingot sales?
  - By expanding the market to include the ingot sales, Alcoa's market share will decrease to
  - Since Alcoa is providing the secondary materials, they are choosing if they want to sell the aluminum and are indirectly controlling the secondary market
  - 由于美国铝业公司提供二级材料，因此他们可以选择是否出售铝，并间接控制二级市场。
  - If Alcoa does not provide the scrap needed, then the secondary market will have nothing to sell
  - Thus, we exclude the secondary market because it is not a competition with Alcoa because Alcoa controls it 29
  - Can buyers go to the secondary market to get aluminum?
  - No, because Alcoa control how much is going into the secondary market
  - Was the monopoly here industrial or exclusionary?
  - The Court finds that even though Alcoa is industrial, it was anticompetitive
  - Alcoa was stimulating demand and building new plants to meet the demand they stimulated - which is industrial - but this hurt competitors
  - 美国铝业公司（Alcoa）刺激了需求，并建立了新工厂来满足他们刺激的需求，这就是工业需求，但这损害了竞争对手的利益。
  - Alcoa was not allowing others in to meet the demand - instead, they were expanding the meet it

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Drobak said this would NOT be the case today - this is an extreme approach
  - Rule: a business violated the Sherman Act if it possesses monopoly power and willfully acquires that power by predatory or exclusionary conduct
  - 规则：如果企业拥有垄断权，并故意通过掠夺性或排他性行为获得这种权力，则违反了《谢尔曼法
  - Sherman may apply to conduct abroad as long as the conduct was intended to affect commerce within our boarders
  - It is OK to be a passive monopoly, but Alcoa sought to monopolize its market by actively squeezing out the competition
  - This opinion is known for the distinction between passive and active monopolies
  - Price squeeze:
  - Alcoa would underprice its aluminum products
  - Competitors would have to also lower their price to meet Alcoa's, which would lower the profit margin
  - Alcoa would also raise the price of essential ingredient to make aluminum, which would further shrink the profit margin for outside competitors
  - 美国铝业公司还将提高制造铝的基本原料的价格，这将进一步缩小外部竞争者的利润空间
  - In the short-term this benefits consumer because the price is lower, however, in the long-term this harms consumer because it drives out all competition, allowing Alcoa to raise prices to monopoly level
  - 从短期来看，这有利于消费者，因为价格降低了，但从长期来看，这损害了消费者的利益，因为它赶走了所有竞争者，使美铝公司得以将价格提高到垄断水平。
  - Today, price squeezing is legal
  - Cellophane:
  - Market includes commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes
  - An element of determining market is cross elasticity
  - High cross-elasticity presents as assumption that the products compete within the same market
  - The market is composed of products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Price, use, quality, characteristics
  - The Court concludes that there is cross-elasticity between Cellophane and other wrappings, thus other wrappings are a part of the relevant market
  - 法院的结论是，玻璃纸与其他包装物之间存在交叉弹性，因此其他包装物也是相关市场的一部分
  - Dissent:
  - Cellophane is different from other packaging materials in transparency, strength, and price
  - Buyers still purchased cellophane despite it being the most expensive packaging material on the market
  - When other products in the wrapping market change their price, cellophane is the only one that does not price follow
  - Cellophane required the manufacturing technique to remain secret and confidential, which prevented other companies from entering the market, despite profits increasing at such rates that would normally encourage competition
  - 玻璃纸要求生产技术保密，这就阻止了其他公司进入市场，尽管利润的增长速度通常会鼓励竞争
  - Cellophane fallacy:
  - If DuPont is a monopoly, how do we know that DuPont is not setting monopoly price
  - We want to look at the competitive price and watch to see if the price goes up and down around competitive price, but here we do not know the competitive price
  - 我们希望了解竞争价格，观察价格是否围绕竞争价格上下波动，但在这里我们不知道竞争价格。
  - If the firm is already a monopoly, it is already pricing at a point reflecting the use of its monopoly power, and just below that level will cause a critical mass of buyers to shift to substitutes
  - 如果企业已经是一家垄断企业，那么它的定价已经反映了其垄断力量的使用情况，只要低于这个水平，就会导致临界质量的买家转向替代品
  - At this point, by definition, alternative products and their sellers will keep the monopolist's price at its current price and no higher
  - 此时，根据定义，替代产品及其销售商将使垄断者的价格保持在当前价位，而不会更高
  - So, no one would expect an increase in profit-maximizing monopolist's price to cause buyers to shift to an alternative product
  - 因此，没有人会指望利润最大化垄断者的价格上涨会导致买家转向替代产品
  - Microsoft:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems is the market according to the Court
• Microsoft argues that the Court should consider MacOS, non-PC devices, and middleware
• MacOS - Court finds that a person with a Mac will not make the switch from Microsoft to Mac because of the switching cost and time it takes to learn a new processing system
  MacOS - 法院认为，拥有 Mac 的人不会从 Microsoft 转到 Mac，因为转换成本高，而且需要时间学习新的处理系统
• Non-PC - Court finds this falls short of performing all the functions of a PC and are mainly used to supplement a PC
• Middleware - Having middleware makes it easier to get products across different software
• Microsoft argues that middleware could usurp Microsoft, but the Court said it is not proper to focus on that because the present or near present is what is considered, not the future
  微软辩称，中间件可能会篡夺微软的地位，但法院表示，关注这一点并不合适，因为考虑的是现在或接近现在的情况，而不是未来的情况。
• The court will not consider something that "may happen" in the future when it is unlikely to happen in the near future
• Middleware argument is premature, and if Microsoft sees this coming, they should eliminate this threat

Tying arrangements:

• Kodak (Singular brand market)
• Whether a competitor who lacks power in the market for the tying product (Kodak had a small share of the copier equipment market) could be held liable for tying a product (parts and services for Kodak equipment) to the detriment of competitors
  在搭售产品市场上缺乏实力的竞争者（柯达在复印机设备市场上的份额很小）是否应为损害竞争者利益的搭售产品（柯达设备的零件和服务）承担责任
• The Court defined the market as Kodak parts and services, which Kodak held of the market
• Customers of the machines, at the time of purchase, could not obtain information about the suppliers' performance in the aftermarket nor their future needs
  机器的客户在购买机器时无法获得有关供应商在售后市场的表现及其未来需求的信息
• The switching costs were too high and impractical for consumers to switch brands once they committed to Kodak machinery
• Thus, Kodak had market power over service and repair in its aftermarket

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The theory of liability was that bundling service and parts with equipment violated section 1 of Sherman, while shutting down parts distribution to competing independent service operators violated section 2 of Sherman
  其责任理论是，将服务和零部件与设备捆绑在一起违反了《谢尔曼法案》第 1 条，而关闭向相互竞争的独立服务运营商分销零部件则违反了《谢尔曼法案》第 2 条。
• This case departs from neoclassical price theory - which we use today
• Neoclassical price theory assumes customers are all knowing when they purchase a product and gets rid of all assumptions about access to switching costs and difficulties switching products
  新古典价格理论假定客户在购买产品时无所不知，并摒弃了所有关于获取转换成本和转换产品困难的假设。
• The jury here found that you can have a market for branded products
• Dissent: The consumer damages here are trivial and consist of issues everyone encounters in ant transaction or market. Competition in the copier market will prevent the overreaching of the aftermarket
  反对意见：这里的消费者损失微不足道，是每个人在蚂蚁交易或市场中都会遇到的问题。复印机市场的竞争将防止售后市场的过度扩张

BARRIERS TO ENTRY:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• This case is important to show how you can lock people in through leases - the other companies were innovating, United wasn't - this is a form of competition, and consumers still did not leave United
  这个案例非常重要，它说明了如何通过租赁来锁定人们--其他公司在创新，而美联航没有--这是一种竞争形式，而消费者仍然没有离开美联航。

ESSENTIAL FACILITIES: 37

Four Considerations Necessary:

1. Control of essential facility by a monopolist
2. A competitor's inability to practically or reasonably duplicate the essential facility
3. The denial of the use of the facility to a competitor
4. The feasibility of providing the facility

Terminal Railroad:

• DOJ alleged violation of section 1 and 2
  - It is hard to claim section 2 because no firm alone had enough of the market share to be considered a monopoly
  - Because Terminal was not treating those outside of the joint railroad equally, a lot of railroads were cut off access to . Louis
  - 由于终点站对联合铁路以外的铁路公司一视同仁，许多铁路公司被切断了进入 .路易斯
  - If we accept that it is impossible to duplicate the facility and the only route is controlled by the Terminal Railroad group, then this is a violation of Sherman
  - 如果我们承认不可能复制该设施，而且唯一的路线由终点站铁路集团控制，那么这就违反了《谢尔曼公约》。
  - The Court found based on the physical and topographical condition of the locality, it violated the Sherman Act based on the hinderance and restriction of interstate commerce
  - 法院认为，根据当地的自然和地形条件，它违反了《谢尔曼法》，因为它阻碍和限制了州际贸易

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• However, Drobak believes the case is stronger under section 1 because of the agreement amongst the competitors

Otter Tail:

• OT is vertically integrated: generates, transports and sells power @ retail price
• Market
• Each town can only have one distribution system (natural monopoly)
• Aggregate of towns - geographic market - OT services almost all of the towns
• Claims
• There is no other way for two towns to leave their existing electricity without having Otter Tail carry the lines over
• To do this, OT will not be affected at all - to have the other town do it would be wasteful duplication an extremely expensive, when OT could do it without any cost/burden
  要做到这一点，OT 将不会受到任何影响 - 让其他城镇来做将是浪费资源的重复劳动，而且成本极高，而 OT 可以在没有任何成本/负担的情况下做到这一点
• However, OT did lay out all expenses up front to do this system
• This is different than Basketball example because people need electricity and it's an essential product
• Essentially, Otter Tail was using their monopoly power to destroy threatened competition, which is a violation of the "attempt to monopolize"
  从根本上说，奥特尾巴公司是在利用自己的垄断力量来破坏受到威胁的竞争，这违反了 "企图垄断 "的规定。
• Cannot foreclose competition to gain competitive advantage or destroy competitor
• Must compete on the merits (superior service, lower price, more efficient)
• A company is not required to assist competitors, but if they are refusing on some other basis than efficiency, the court is likely to say it is exclusionary/essential facility
  公司不必协助竞争对手，但如果公司以效率以外的其他理由拒绝协助，法院很可能会认为这是排他性的/必要的设施。
• If the two towns leave, the electricity cost will go down for the people in those areas, but for the people in the towns not leaving, the cost will go up because the electricity maintenance will be spread over fewer people
  如果这两个城镇离开，这些地区的居民的电费将减少，但对于没有离开的城镇的居民来说，电费将增加，因为电力维护将分摊到更少的人身上
• The court is favoring lower prices for the 2 surrounding towns in exchange for higher prices for OT
• Is the benefit in the other outside towns enough to force OT customers to bear the burden?
• from a utilitarian analysis is better because more people benefit than harmed

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• today, we have federal electricity because the Court overlooked the issue of capital gains - however, this case does follow the Railroad, but when you take a step back, you see the bigger picture
  今天，我们有了联邦电力，因为法院忽视了资本收益的问题--然而，本案确实遵循了《铁路法》，但当你退一步，你就会看到更大的图景

Airline Schedule:

• OAG, Donnelley, put the commuter airlines in the back
• Commuter airlines claim the OAG is an essential facility, and they have less access to it
• The court said this is a different kind of problem than railroad issue because OAG is not a part of the airline business, they are a separate non-benefiting corporation that is making a choice to put the commuter connections in the back of the OAG
  法院表示，这是一个与铁路问题不同的问题，因为 OAG 不是航空公司业务的一部分，他们是一家独立的非福利性公司，选择将通勤连接放在 OAG 的后面。
• OAG is a monopoly, but they are not benefitting in any way from this decision

THE CONDUCT OFFENSE

Exclusionary Conduct:

Loraine News: (early case showing exclusionary conduct under )

• The publisher refused to accept local advertisements in the Journal from any company that advertised with Loraine County Radio Station (WEOL radio)
  出版商拒绝接受任何在洛林郡广播电台（WEOL 电台）做广告的公司在《日报》上刊登当地广告
• Definition of market:
• Providing news to the geographical area
• This included newspaper and radio - Loraine had of the market with the newspaper (primarily a newspaper market)
• Even after the radio started up, Loraine's market shares barely changed - Loraine wanted to preserve their monopoly power by limiting the market share of the radio
  即使在广播电台开播后，Loraine 的市场份额也几乎没有变化--Loraine 希望通过限制广播电台的市场份额来维护其垄断地位。
• The Court finds they violated of Sherman because they refused to advertise for those who advertised on their competitor's station
  法院认为他们违反了谢尔曼的 规定，因为他们拒绝为那些在竞争对手电台上做广告的人做广告

Aspen Ski Company: (refusal to deal)

• Aspen Ski Company stopped selling tickets to the Highlands Ski Company which essentially required Highlands to only include one mountain, instead of 4, and it became a day-trip ski resort
  阿斯彭滑雪公司停止向高地滑雪公司出售门票，这就要求高地滑雪公司只包括一座山，而不是四座山，高地滑雪公司成为一日游滑雪胜地
  - The consumers and Highland Ski Company are both harmed - their stock decreases significantly, etc.
  - The court says based on this harm, the burden shifts to Aspen to show valid business justification for this
  - The company was sick of dealing with Highland, so they wanted Highland to go out so they could have more customers, i.e., stealing Highlands Customers
  - 该公司厌倦了与高原公司打交道，因此他们希望高原公司倒闭，这样他们就能有更多的客户，即抢走高原公司的客户
  - Aspen said it was too difficult to continue having the all-access ski pass and it was cumbersome to determine the allocation of revenue if they offered joint ticket
  - 阿斯彭说，要继续使用滑雪通行证太困难了，而且如果提供联票，要确定收入分配也很麻烦。
  - Valid business justification
  - Aspen also claims that Highlands offered an inferior product, which would harm their reputation
  - Valid business justification
  - However, the court said this violates of Sherman because the jury said the justifications were not valid and there was monopolistic intent
  - 然而，法院认为这违反了《谢尔曼法》 ，因为陪审团认为理由不成立，存在垄断意图
  - If the jury had ruled the other way would the Court have upheld? - Likely no, because there was evidence that the skiers preferred a joint lift ticket with Highland, so consumers were harmed by removing this joint ticket
  - 如果陪审团做出了相反的裁决，法院会维持原判吗？- 可能不会，因为有证据表明滑雪者更喜欢与高地滑雪场的联票，因此取消联票会损害消费者的利益。
  - If there was never a joint ticket to begin with, and consumers never had the benefit of a lift ticket taken away from them, then there likely would be a different outcome
  - 如果从一开始就不存在联票，消费者从未被剥夺过电梯票的利益，那么很可能会出现不同的结果
  - However, since the benefit was taken from them, and the Court saw evidence of harm, it led to more favorable ruling for Highland
  - In either case, the consumers would benefit, however, it is different to enter into an agreement and then withdraw compared to never entering into the agreement
  - 无论在哪种情况下，消费者都会受益，但签订协议后又撤销与从未签订协议的情况不同
  - Specifically, Aspen states, "exclusionary comprehends at the most behavior that not only (1) tends to impair the opportunities of rivals, but also (2) either does not further competition on the merits or does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way"
  - 具体而言，Aspen 指出，"排他性最多包括以下行为：(1) 可能损害竞争对手的机会，(2) 不促进实质上的竞争或以不必要的限制方式促进竞争"。
  - It is important that consumers were harmed, and they changed a historical course of conduct

- § 2 does NOT force businesses to work with each other for the benefit of consumers, unless consumers had the benefit and then it was taken from them
- 第 2 节并不强迫企业为了消费者的利益而相互合作，除非消费者已经获得了利益，但又被剥夺了。

Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph:

• Western created Telex service
• Olympia leased Telex Equipment - Western changed course, withdrew from terminal leasing competitors
• Claim: alleging that Western had monopoly power over telex service and used the power to curtail competition in the complementary equipment
  诉求：指控 Western 公司对电传服务拥有垄断权，并利用这种权力限制配套设备的竞争
• However, having two monopolies in the same market would not be profitable
• Telex is a regulated monopoly (government regulated), so it cannot have a monopoly profit, if Western had a monopoly over equipment, it might make sense - but it doesn't
  Telex 是一家受监管的垄断企业（由政府监管），因此不可能获得垄断利润，如果 Western 拥有设备垄断权，这或许说得通，但事实并非如此。
• The court says a lawful monopoly has no general duty to help its competitors whether by holding a price umbrella over their heads or by otherwise pulling its competitive punches
  法院称，合法垄断企业没有帮助竞争对手的一般义务，无论是在竞争对手头上撑起价格保护伞，还是采取其他竞争手段
• Western brought Olympia into the market, and then took it away when they found out that Olympia was not selling enough equipment
  西方公司将奥林匹亚带入市场，但当他们发现奥林匹亚的设备销量不足时，又将其收回
• Western wanted to get rid of the equipment - so, they gave it to Olympia, but Western realized they still had too much equipment, so they wanted to get rid of their own by not telling customers about Olympia and instead sell them their left-over equipment
  西部公司想处理掉设备--所以他们把设备交给了奥林匹亚，但西部公司意识到他们仍有太多设备，所以他们想处理掉自己的设备，不告诉客户奥林匹亚的情况，而是把剩下的设备卖给他们

Bowling Alley Hypo:

Verizon v. Law Offices of Trinko:

• V has local service monopoly, competitive long-distance market
  - Congress wanted to create competition in local markets, so they required the local provider to lease services to anyone coming into the market - competitor could choose what they wanted to lease, but local provider did not want to comply because the prices were too low
  - 美国国会希望在本地市场创造竞争，因此要求本地提供商向任何进入市场的人租赁服务 - 竞争对手可以选择他们想要租赁的服务，但本地提供商不想遵守，因为价格太低了
  - Verizon is resisting AT&T attempt to compete in the market
  - Lawyer files suit saying he lost money because was dragging its feet in allowing AT&T to come in
  - Different than Aspen by:
  - Regulatory component of statute enacted by government
  - Thus, cannot argue essential facilities doctrine because they had access to it

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The Court said there is no need for antitrust when there is already government regulation under the FCC
• The additional benefit provided by adding antitrust protection is so marginal and small
• Doctrine of implied immunity - Congress did not intend for this statute to supersede antitrust laws
• There was no exclusionary act in this case

PRICE DISCRIMINATION:

1. Primary line discrimination

2. Secondary line discrimination

Predatory pricing is defined as:

1. Below cost pricing

2. With a likely prospect of recoupment through monopolistic (supracompetitve) pricing later (once competitors are gone)

• Utah Pie (predatory pricing)
• Utah Pie revenue went up because in response to their competition they expanded their production
• Utah Pie market share went down, but they increased the number of pies they were selling
• Centennial Pie is charging different prices in areas of high competition
• Customers were not hurt by this - larger pie selection for lower prices
• However, this is illegal because it would have a long-term impact on Utah Pie that would cause them to leave the market
• This would hurt consumers long-term
• Predatory pricing below costs may hurt consumers by driving competitors out of the market and this would create monopoly and monopoly pricing/less selection for consumers
  低于成本的掠夺性定价可能会将竞争者赶出市场，从而损害消费者利益，这将造成垄断和垄断定价/减少消费者的选择。
• This is protecting competition, not Utah Pie
• Short term vs. long term -
• Short term = consumers benefit from price wars
• Long term = consumers will be hurt because competitors are driven out fo market or they will continue raising prices
• Key here was intent to hurt Utah Pie
• This would likely not be the case today - this was a long time ago
• The statutory test is one that looks forward on the basis of proven conduct in the past - determine an exclusionary act based on what is going to happen in the future
  法定检验标准是在过去已证明的行为的基础上展望未来的检验标准--根据未来将发生的事情来确定排除行为

Brooke Group (most important case to Drobak)

• Generic cigarette case - Liggett introduced a line of generic, low-cost cigarettes that were a hit. B&W responded. By forming vertical agreements with distributors, offering huge discounts, etc. in order to force Liggett out of the market. As a result, Liggett, who had of the generic cigarette market and of the overall market, began a campaign to match the rebates offered by B&W and filed suit. Liggett indicated that B&W was selling cigarettes below costs (hallmark of predatory pricing).
  通用香烟盒 - Liggett 推出了一系列通用的低价香烟，大受欢迎。B&W 对此做出了回应。他们与分销商签订纵向协议，提供巨额折扣等，以迫使利格特退出市场。结果，Liggett 在非专利卷烟市场上占据了 的份额，在整个市场上占据了 的份额，开始了与 B&W 提供的回扣相匹配的运动，并提起了诉讼。Liggett 指出，B&W 以低于成本的价格销售香烟（掠夺性定价的标志）。
• Evidentiary standard for predatory pricing is high and costs are expensive to show this
• Although unsuccessful predatory pricing may encourage some inefficient substitution toward the product being sold at less than costs, unsuccessful predation is in general a boon to consumers KEY
  虽然不成功的掠夺性定价可能会鼓励一些低效率的替代品以低于成本的价格出售产品，但不成功的掠夺行为一般来说对消费者是有利的。
• Pricing signals the market - those signals must give accurate signals to the consumers
• If you underprice a product, people buy too much of it - you are giving the wrong idea
• Here, we are rejecting neoclassical price theory - they would rather help consumers when push comes to shove - consumers gain more than they will have to pay back in the recoupment phase
  在此，我们摒弃了新古典价格理论--在迫不得已的情况下，他们更愿意帮助消费者--消费者的收益大于他们在收回阶段需要偿还的费用
• Plaintiffs showed the predatory pricing - but they failed to show recoupment
• But the recoupment was not in generic cigs, it was in branded too
• The plaintiffs should have showed generic and braded
• Prices between generic and branded got closer together, which in theory would hurt consumers, but they failed to show the recoupment because they only focused on the generic only
  仿制药和品牌药之间的价格越来越接近，这在理论上会损害消费者的利益，但由于他们只关注仿制药，因此未能显示出收回成本的情况

• W is buying timber at a higher rate
• By paying a higher price, they are driving their competitors out of business
• If they are the only wholesale buyer then they can set the price anywhere they want - obviously they will lower price when competition is gone
  如果他们是唯一的批发买家，那么他们就可以随心所欲地制定价格--显然，当竞争消失时，他们就会降低价格
• Wonly has power in the log market - not the board market
• The Court holds that this does not hurt consumers
• Normally, W would pass the higher prices onto the board market - but since the board market is competitive, they cannot do this
• It would be different if had market power in boards too
• W is just hurting itself, while sawmills are the ones being hurt
• Long-term this will hurt the lumberjacks if the other wholesale log buyers are driven out of the market
• To determine predatory pricing, we look at how much they are paying for the log and the profit from selling the logs to market
• We compare them to determine predatory pricing
• Predatory bidding on the buy side must cause the cost of the relevant output to rise above the revenue generated in the sale of the outputs
  买方的掠夺性竞价必须导致相关产出的成本高于产出销售所产生的收入

PRICE SQUEEZES:

Pacific Bell Telephone v. Linkline Communications:

• AT&T selling DSL
• AT&T retail price is so low and its wholesale price is so high it squeezes the competition out of the market
• In Alcoa, this was illegal - but this court said they are legal in modern Court
• Today, these are legal because there is no duty to deal with competitors in antitrust
• "firm with no duty to deal in wholesale has no obligation to deal under terms/conditions favorable to its competitors"
• On the retail side, AT&T is charging the low retail price to squeeze out
• The price is low, but still above production costs - thus, it is not predatory pricing
• Low price to customer is irrelevant if not predatory
• Common Standard: the must leave its rivals a fair or adequate margin between the wholesale price and retail price
• No duty to deal + no predatory pricing violations under antitrust law
• A regulation or merger duty to deal is not antitrust duty - keep them separate

• McKenzie and PeaceHealth were the only providers of primary and secondary hospital care in Lane County
• McKenzie brought suit against PeaceHealth for anticompetitive price bundling when making service offerings to insurers
  McKenzie 控告 PeaceHealth 在向保险公司提供服务时进行反竞争价格捆绑
• For example, PeaceHealth had offered one insurer a reimbursement rate of to remain the insurer's preferred provider for all hospital services, but a rate of only if the insurer added McKenzie as a preferred provider
  例如，PeaceHealth 曾向一家保险公司提供 的报销率，以保持其所有医院服务的首选提供商地位，但如果该保险公司将 McKenzie 增列为首选提供商，则报销率仅为 。
• The jury found for McKenzie and awarded damages - the verdict followed an instruction by the Court that did not allow the jury to consider PeaceHealth's relative efficiency in offering bundled services before assessing the likelihood of anticompetitive effects
  陪审团判定 McKenzie 胜诉并给予损害赔偿--判决是在法院作出指示后作出的，该指示不允许陪审团在评估反竞争影响的可能性之前考虑 PeaceHealth 在提供捆绑服务方面的相对效率。
• On appeal, the Court held that bundled discount constitutes an antitrust violation if the defendant sold the bundled products below their incremental or average variable cost
  在上诉中，法院认为， ，如果被告以低于其增量成本或平均可变成本的价格销售捆绑产品，则构成违反反垄断法的行为。
• Price bundling is a sales technique under which 2 or more goods that could be sold separately are sold together at a single price
  价格捆绑是一种销售技巧，在这种技巧下，两种或两种以上可以分开销售的商品以一个价格一起销售。
• Generally, the price is less than the price of the goods when purchased separately, and the seller saves money due to lower transaction costs
  一般来说，价格低于单独购买时的价格，由于交易成本较低，卖方可节省资金
• As a result, bundled discounts are generally acceptable means of competition because it benefits consumers
• However, if a bundled discount amounts to an exclusionary practice that reduces competition, then such a discount will be unlawful under antitrust law
  但是，如果捆绑折扣相当于减少竞争的排他性做法，那么根据反垄断法，这种折扣将是非法的

- When does a bundled discount restrain competition?

• Bundled discounts do not amount to exclusionary conduct unless the discounts reduce prices below some measure of the defendant's cost to produce the discounts
  捆绑折扣并不等于排他性行为，除非折扣使价格低于被告为获得折扣而付出的某种成本

- The standard is account-attribution

• Under this standard, the full amount of the bundled discount is measured against the 's incremental production cost, or the cost of producing one additional unit of each of the bundled products
  根据这一标准， 捆绑折扣的全额是根据 的增量生产成本（或生产每种捆绑产品的一个额外单位的成本）来衡量的。
• If the bundled price is below the incremental cost, then the bundle may be exclusionary and anticompetitive
• Account-attribution test:
• (1) after allocating all discounts and rebates attributable to the entire bundle of product, the defendant sold the product below its incremental cost for the product at market/competitive price
  (1) 在分配了可归属于整捆产品的所有折扣和回扣后，被告以低于其增量成本的市场/竞争价格销售产品； (2) 在分配了可归属于整捆产品的所有折扣和回扣后，被告以低于其增量成本的市场/竞争价格销售产品。
• (2) the defendant is likely to recoup these short-term losses
• (3) the bundled discount or rebate program has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition
• In sum, the test is whether a competitor at least as efficient as the defendant would be excluded from the market due to the defendant's bundle-discount pricing
  总之，检验的标准是，至少与被告同样有效的竞争者是否会因为被告的捆绑折扣定价而被排除在市场之外。

Microsoft:

• Market definition: intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide
• Poof of Monopolization in violation of :
• Microsoft was trying to stamp out middleware - it would provide a platform for the operation of software using other operating systems to run on something other than Windows
  微软正试图消灭中间件--它将为使用其他操作系统的软件提供一个运行平台，使其能够在 Windows 以外的其他系统上运行
• Dt. Ct. said that Microsoft integrated IE, and that can only be said as a way to kill development of Netscape
• Ct. of App.:
• To be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist act must have an anticompetitive effect
• must show the anticompetitive effect resulting from the monopolist's conduct

• the dissatisfaction of consumers is not anticompetitive
• if is successful in establishing a prima facie claim by showing exclusionary conduct and an anticompetitive effect, the monopolist can proffer a pro-competitive justification for its conduct
  如果 通过证明排他性行为和反竞争效果成功地确立了表面证据确凿的主张，垄断者可以为其行为提出有利于竞争的理由
• ex: greater efficiency or enhanced consumer appeal, etc.
• if monopolist pro-competitive justification stands unrebutted, then the must demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs the pro-competitive benefit
  如果垄断者支持竞争的理由不成立，那么 必须证明该行为的反竞争损害大于支持竞争的利益
• look at the EFFECT, not the INTENT

• it must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers - mere harm to competitors is not enough

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another, without more, will not be enough to state a claim
• The Commission and FTC cannot fine companies, all they can do is bring a claim and order to companies to comply with certain rules the Court decides
  委员会和联邦贸易委员会不能对公司处以罚款，他们能做的只是提出索赔，并命令公司遵守法院裁定的某些规则。
• They can bring a criminal claim and send them to jail or fine them - but not in a civil suit
• The public can bring civil suits against companies and show damages and get treble damages - once the court finds liability in the government case, all the private companies have to do is show damages and issue preclusion allows them to essentially piggyback off of the government's case
  公众可以对公司提起民事诉讼，展示损害赔偿并获得三倍赔偿--一旦法院认定政府案件中的责任，私营公司所要做的就是展示损害赔偿，问题排除允许他们从政府案件中搭便车。
• This makes finding liability more significant
• There is still no answer on the breadth of section 5 of the FTC Act - however, it is believed this is better because finding liability under this does not allow private actions so there would be no issue preclusion piggybacking off of the government actions
  关于《联邦贸易委员会法》第 5 条的适用范围，目前还没有答案--不过，人们认为这样更好，因为根据该条款认定责任不允许私人诉讼，因此不会出现从政府诉讼捎带的问题排除情况

coercion here is between a retailer and manufacturer, not competitors!!!

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

1. Restraints that limit the freedom of a party to the contract

2. Restraints that foreclose outsiders

1. RESTRAINTS THAT LIMIT RESELLERS IN THE PRICE OF, CONSUMERS TO WHOM, OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THEY MAY DEAL

Dr. Miles:

• Dr. Miles made vertical price-fixing per se illegal
• This case rejects the view that manufacturers can be told how much they have to sell a product for - once you sell the good, you have no control over the price anymore
  本案否定了制造商可以被告知必须以多少价格出售产品的观点--一旦你出售了商品，你就再也无法控制价格了
• Retailers know best, so they get to set their own price to consumers
• Dr. Miles wants retailers to sell their product at a higher price, so they make more money off of the sales of their product and therefore push their product more to consumers
  迈尔斯博士希望零售商以更高的价格销售他们的产品，这样他们就能从产品销售中赚取更多的钱，从而将他们的产品更多地推向消费者。
• This case is overruled, and now vertical price fixing is viewed under the rule of reason

Colgate Doctrine:

• There is no restriction on manufacturers and retailers deciding who they are going to engage in activity with
• If there is a unilateral decision by manufacturers to deal with certain retailers only if they sell their product for and, if the retailer fails to do so, he has the right to refuse further dealings with him - conversely, if this decision is followed by a unilateral decision on behalf of the retailers to sell the product for at least , this is considered a unilateral agreement and not a contract
  如果制造商单方面决定只有在某些零售商以 的价格出售其产品时才与之交易，如果零售商没有这样做，则制造商有权拒绝与其进一步交易--反之，如果在作出这一决定后，零售商单方面决定至少以 的价格出售产品，则这被视为单方面协议，而不是合同。
• Conduct does not create a contract here
• In absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the act does not restrict the recognized right of trader or manufacturer engaged in a private business to freely exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom to deal 41
  在没有任何建立或维持垄断的目的的情况下，该法并不限制从事私人业务的贸易商或制造商在与谁交易的问题上自由行使自己独立判断的公认权利。

Monsantos:

• Issue: standard of proof to find vertical price-fixing conspiracy under § 1 of Sherman Act
  - The jury found that the termination of Spray Rite was pursuant to a conspiracy between Monsanto and one or more of its distributors to set resale prices
  - 陪审团认定，孟山都公司与一家或多家分销商合谋确定转售价格，从而终止了喷礼公司的业务。
  - Concerted v. Independent Action:
  - Under Colgate, a manufacturer can announce its resale prices in advance and refuse to deal with those who fail to comply, and a distributor is free to acquiesce in the manufactures demand to avoid termination
  - 根据高露洁公司的规定，制造商可以事先公布其转售价格，并拒绝与不遵守价格者进行交易，而分销商则可以自由地默认制造商的要求，以避免被终止合同。
  - Concerted action to set prices v. Concerted action on non-price restrictions:
  - The former is Dr. Miles (now overruled)
  - The latter is judged under rule of reason
  - Non-price restrictions here:
  - Requiring special training of salesman so they were able to educate the public on herbicides, requiring the distributor to exploit fully the product in the geographic area, etc.
  - 要求对销售人员进行专门培训，使他们能够向公众宣传除草剂，要求经销商在该地区充分开发产品，等等。
  - Constant communication about price and marketing, alone, does not show concerted price-fixing
  - The fact that Monsantos imposed a costly set of non-price restrictions, and then offered monetary incentives to retailers that followed their pricing scheme does not, alone, suggest an agreement
  - 孟山都公司施加了一系列代价高昂的非价格限制，然后向遵循其定价方案的零售商提 供金钱奖励，但这一事实本身并不表明双方达成了协议。
  - Something more than price complaints is needed to show an agreement
  - There must be something more that is considered evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and nonterminated distributors were acting independently
  - 必须有更多的被视为证据的东西倾向于排除制造商和非终端分销商独立行事的可能性

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Here, there was substantial direct evidence showing evidence of agreements to maintain prices
• There was testimony from Monsanto district manager that price-cutting distributors were approached twice and told that if they did not maintain resale price, they would not have access to the new corn herbicide
  孟山都地区经理作证说，曾两次找到降价经销商，告诉他们如果不维持转售价格，就无法获得新的玉米除草剂。
• When one distributor did not assent, this information was sent to reginal office and to their parent company the parent company told the subsidiary to comply and parent company told Monsantos they would comply
  当一家分销商不同意时，这一信息被发送到监管办公室及其母公司 ，母公司告诉子公司遵守规定，母公司告诉 Monsantos 他们会遵守规定。
• This is evidence as to the meeting of the minds
• There was additional evidence of a newsletter which outlined the rules of the game and said that those distributors that did not comply would be terminated
  还有证据表明，有一份简讯概述了游戏规则，并表示不遵守规则的分销商将被解雇
• After the Court found an agreement - the question is whether Spray Rite was terminated in pursuant to that agreement?
• The Court finds it is reasonable to assume so
• There was testimony that in a meeting following the termination, the first thing mentioned was the complaints Monsantos received about Spray Rite prices
  有证据表明，在终止合同后的一次会议上，首先提到的是孟山都收到的关于 Spray Rite 价格的投诉
• There was testimony that Monsanto never discussed with Spray Rite the distributorship criteria that were the alleged basis for the termination, prior to the termination
  有证据表明，在终止之前，孟山都公司从未与 Spray Rite 公司讨论过分销商资格的标准，而这些标准正是所称终止的依据。

HISTORY OF MERGERS:

• Clayton Act is designed to arrest mergers at a time when the trend to a lessening competition in a line of commerce is still in incipiency (Brown Shoe)
  克莱顿法》的目的是在某一行业的竞争减少趋势仍处于萌芽状态时阻止兼并（布朗鞋业公司）。
• The Clayton Act only allows civil enforcement by government agencies, no criminal penalties

Brown Shoe: (Beginning of Modern Merger law)

• After merger, the company would have of the entire shoe market
• But Brown Shoe would only have of the physical market, i.e., retail store sales
• SCOTUS said they violated the Clayton Act
• The Court takes into account "submarket test factors"
• Industry/public recognition of submarket as separate economic entity, product's peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity of price changes, specialized vendors
  行业/公众承认次级市场是独立的经济实体、产品的独特性和用途、独特的生产设施、独特的客户、独特的价格、对价格变化的敏感性、专门的供应商
• The Court allowed the FTC/agencies to take pre-emptive steps to avoid antitrust violation
• The Court said they are worried that other show manufactures will buy up smaller retail stores and hurt competition
• Vertically integrated shoe manufacturers with retail stores, which are only going to push manufactures shoes
• Strong national shoe chain can insulate themselves and keep their prices down because they will make money elsewhere since they are national - in the long run, this may hinder variety of shoe choice by keeping the smaller shoe sellers out of the market
  强大的全国性鞋业连锁店可以自我保护并压低价格，因为它们是全国性的，可以在其他地方赚钱--从长远来看，这可能会把小鞋商挤出市场，从而阻碍鞋类选择的多样性
• It is clear here that the Court is protecting smaller retailers, even though we apparently do not protect competitors
• Drobak said this case would not come out the same

• Proposed merger between the and largest banks in Philly
• The Court looks at the market before and after the merger
• At the time, they used CR2 to determine the market
• The Court said change presents a threat of monopoly or oligopoly
• Here, there is a market change over and over in market share, making the court suspect
• Philly National Bank tries to say that the Bank is big, but it is small compared to NYC banks
• Essentially, they try to argue that if the government wants more competition with NY banks, then they have to let other big city banks get big enough to compete with them
  从根本上说，他们试图争辩说，如果政府希望纽约的银行有更多的竞争，那么就必须让其他大城市的银行变得足够大，以便与他们竞争
• Court rejects this argument

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The Court is not going to weigh the gain in the NY market to the loss in the Philly market
• Philly National Bank then tries to argue that Philly needs a bigger bank so that the companies do not have to turn to NY banks for big loans, etc.
  费城国家银行随后试图辩称，费城需要一家更大的银行，这样公司就不必向纽约银行申请大额贷款等。
• The Court rejects this argument because it is a social justification and irrelevant
• Drobak believes this merger would likely be allowed today

Proctor and Gamble: (conglomerate merger)

• Before Procter and Gamble take over Clorox, they own of the national market
• After the merger with Clorox, nothing changes regarding the % of market owned by any companies
• However, the Court still says the merger violate Clayton Act
• The Court said the competition is through advertising this is a "barrier to entry"
• Bleach is bleach - thus, it is fungible, and is harder for people to distinguish product
• The existence of Purex (next largest company) was has capacity to make more bleach will require Clorox to keep prices down or consumers would switch - however, P&G had a huge marketing and advertising market
  Purex（下一个最大的公司）有能力生产更多漂白剂，这就要求高乐氏压低价格，否则消费者就会转而购买--然而，宝洁拥有巨大的营销和广告市场。
• Consumer habits give some power over price - people will stay with Clorox based on consumer habits established through advertising
  消费者习惯对价格有一定影响--人们会根据通过广告建立起来的消费习惯继续使用 Clorox
• Thus, this would potentially allow Clorox to slightly raise prices over Purex
• P&G were into all kinds of products, but not bleach
• By allowing P&G into the market by buying Clorox, the market is losing the opportunity for a third party to enter into the market that is not already in Bleach
  宝洁公司通过收购高乐氏进入市场，使市场失去了第三方进入漂白剂市场的机会。
• This is industrial planning - should not be a part of antitrust
• The Court did not include this in the opinion
• The idea of advertising and one company controlling the advertising in many different product categories is an issue - the power of advertising is anticompetitive
  广告和一家公司控制许多不同产品类别广告的想法是一个问题--广告的力量是反竞争的

MODERN MERGER LAW:

OVERVIEW:

CLAYTON ACT § 16 protects against threatened loss or damage by a violation of antitrust

intends to arrest the anticompetitive effects of their market power in their incipiency

1. Standing:

1. Thus, even if a threatened injury is causally related to an antitrust violation, it will not qualify as antitrust injury unless it is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny
   因此，即使受到威胁的损害与违反反托拉斯法的行为有因果关系，也不能被视为反托拉斯损害，除非这种损害可归因于受审查行为的反竞争方面。

1. these are only for standing under of Clayton Act, which provides injunctive relief, not treble damages

2. (1) does plaintiff's complaint allege a threatened injury in fact?
3. (2) does the threatened injury result from an anticompetitive aspect of proposed conduct, i.e., that which would make the transaction illegal under antitrust law?
   (2) 拟议行为的反竞争方面，即根据反托拉斯法会使交易违法的方面，是否造成了威胁损害？

1. Standing depends on the directness of the injury, whether the claim is speculative, the existence of more direct victims, the potential for duplicative recovery and complexity of apportioning damages
   诉讼资格取决于伤害的直接性、索赔是否是推测性的、是否存在更直接的受害者、重复索赔的可能性以及分摊损害赔偿的复杂性。

2. these are additionally requirements for , which allows treble damages**

2. Market definition: the narrower the market definition, the more likely the market will be concentrated. Concentrated markets make collusion easier.
   市场定义：市场定义越窄，市场越可能集中。集中的市场更容易出现合谋。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

1. Square the market shares add up the squared market shares of the two corporations
2. Determine the change in by taking the market shares of the two companies' merger and multiplying them together, then multiplying by 2
   将两家公司合并后的市场份额相乘，再乘以 2，即可得出 的变化。

ii. We look at post-merger ONLY**

1. Unconcentrated market, mergers not a problem

1. Moderate concentration
2. If there is an increase in HHI before/after merger more than 100 , there is a potential problem

1. Highly concentrated look at change in
2. Change in HHI between 100-200 means potential problems

3. Change in over 200 is likely to enhance market power/produce an oligopoly

3. Horizontal Merger analysis:

1. the must show that the prima facie case inaccurately predicts that the merger will harm the competition or show other pro-competitive justification for the merger
   必须证明表面证据不准确地预测了合并会损害竞争，或证明合并有其他有利于竞争的理由

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

1. Includes: better us of firm assets, higher quality products, or lower production costs that will lead to lower prices
2. The burden is higher in highly concentrated markets

4. Horizontal merger examples

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

5. Non-horizontal mergers:

6. Mergers and Public Interest

7. Pre-Merger Notice Requirement

8. Enforcement

9. International Dimensions of Merger Law

ANALYSIS:

• traditional route: define the market, measure the market concentration and its increase as a result of the merger, and if the numbers are high enough explore further whether the market
  传统途径：界定市场，衡量市场集中度及其因合并而增加的程度，如果数字足够高，则进一步探讨市场是否
  environment is conductive to coordinated or unilateral price-raising behavior. Harm to innovation is hard to predict, but the Court primarily focuses on increase in prices.
  环境有利于协调或单边提价行为。对创新的损害很难预测，但法院主要关注的是价格上涨。

- Product market definition

• Hypothetical monopolist test
• Hypothesize a market, assume a single monopolist raises the price what is likely to happen as a result?
• Will critical mass buyers shift to another alternative so that the monopolist could not profitably hold the price increase?
  大量买家是否会转向其他替代品，从而使垄断者无法通过涨价获利？
• If so, include that next alternative in the market and proceed again with SSNIP (small but significant and non-transitory increase in price) until the hypothetical price increase is profitable and there is your market (include product and geographic markets)
  如果是，则将下一个备选方案纳入市场，并再次进行 SSNIP（小幅但显著且非过渡性的提价），直到假设提价有利可图，并形成市场（包括产品和地域市场）。
• Also consider:
• Benchmark prices SSNIP Size
• Product market definition with targeted consumers
• Geographic market definition
• Locations of suppliers
• Location of buyers

• List the market participants and the shares of each and measure the concentration

• The Court may not determine at all if it is a single firm/unilateral effect story
• If this is the case, the agency is likely to estimate a diversion ratio - or the diversion of sales in the event of higher prices within the monopoly
  如果是这种情况，该机构很可能会估算出一个转移比率--或在垄断范围内价格上涨时的销售转移率。
• The value of sales diverted to the monopoly/merger indicates the release of pressure on the company as a result of the disappearance of competition
  转移到垄断/兼并企业的销售额表明，由于竞争的消失，公司的压力得到了释放

• Pricing of differentiated products

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Bargaining
• Capacity and output
• Innovation and product variety

• Impact of merger on coordinated interaction
• Evidence a market is vulnerable to coordinated conduct

• Under any theory, if, in the event of a price increase, entry can be expected to remain timely, likely and sufficient to fully counter a price rise, the merger is unlikely to be anticompetitive
  在任何理论下，如果在价格上涨的情况下，可以预期进入仍将及时、可能并足以完全抵消价格上涨，则合并不大可能是反竞争的。
• Moreover, agencies will not challenge a merger if cognizable efficiencies are of a character and magnitude such that merger is not likely to be anticompetitive in any relevant market
  此外，如果可确认的效率在性质和规模上使兼并在任何相关市场上都不可能是反竞争的，那么有关机构就不会对兼并提出质疑。
• Timeliness
• Likelihood
• Sufficiency

• Types of Evidence
• Actual effects observed in consummated mergers
• Direct comparisons based on experience
• Market shares and concentration in relevant market
• Substantial head-to-head competition
• Disruptive role of a merging party
• Sources of evidence
• Merging parties
• Customers
• Other industry participants

Analysis: Vertical Merger Injunction

• (1) show prima facie case by identifying the relevant market and show that the merger will impede competition in that market (must be SPECIFIC)
  (1) 通过确定相关市场，证明表面证据确凿，并证明兼并将阻碍该市场的竞争（必须具体说明）

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• A vertical merger may impede competition by giving the merges company control of a competitively significant supplier and withholding supply unless competitors pay higher prices
  纵向兼并可能会阻碍竞争，因为兼并后的公司可以控制具有重要竞争地位的供应商，除非竞争对手支付更高的价格，否则就不供货
• (2) after showing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to to show that the predictions are wrong or procompetitive justifications
  (2) 在证明表面证据确凿后， ，以证明预测是错误的或有利于竞争的理由。
• Efficiency justifications: Every vertical merger eliminates double marginalization by eliminating one profit
• (3) if the burden returns to the government, they must produce additional evidence and this merges with its substantial burden of persuasion
  (3) 如果政府重新承担责任，他们必须提供更多证据，这与政府的实质性说服责任相合并

Citizen's Publishing: (Horizontal Merger)

• Failing Company Doctrine
• This still exists, but is so rare and difficult to use that it is impractical
• It allows a company to take over a failing company to save it
• Bankruptcy is a viable way to save a failing company without merger

General Dynamics:

• This was the movement to modern merger law
• A coal company took over another coal company - production and annual sales made it look anticompetitive, but if you look at the contracts, you see that the company being taken over was not a competitor in the market
  一家煤炭公司兼并了另一家煤炭公司--产量和年销售额使它看起来像是反竞争的，但如果你看一下合同，就会发现被兼并的公司在市场上并不是竞争者
• The whole company consisted of long-term contracts with companies to sell the coal in the reserves
• Thus, they had 0 capacity to compete because they were in contracts to sell every last lump of coal
• It is important to look at annual sales, production, and capacity
• The court here look at capacity and there was 0 capacity, thus, they were not competition
• do not only look at numbers**

DETERMINING THE MARKET:

FTC v. Staples:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The Court considers the market to only be office supply stores, so the merger is 10,000 with a change of 600
• Merger is obviously not allowed here
• Evidence of market definition:
• FTC found that where Staples did not compete with other office supply stores their prices were well over higher and sometimes up to higher than in areas where it did compete with office supply stores
  联邦贸易委员会发现，在 Staples 没有与其他办公用品商店竞争的地区，其价格远远高于 ，有时甚至高达 。
• this is significant if the prices are different in markets where they are in direct competition geographically than markets where they are not in competition, this shows they are directly competing with each other, rather than competing within the broader market
  这一点意义重大 ，如果在地理位置上直接竞争的市场与没有竞争的市场的价格不同，这表明它们是在直接竞争，而不是在更广阔的市场内竞争
• The Court also found low cross-elasticity between superstores and non-superstore retailers, and found that superstores (office supply stores) had unique characteristics
  法院还发现，超级商店与非超级商店零售商之间的交叉弹性较低，并发现超级商店（办公用品商店）具有独特的特点
• The Court found a submarket in consumable office supplies sold throughout the supply superstores
• Drobak thinks the opinion is evidence of competition of Office Depot and Staples in certain markets
• 15 years later the Court allowed Office Depot and Office Max (#2and #3) to merger

Whole Foods Market:

• Whole Foods Market wanted to buy out Wild Oats Market
• Market
• Whole Foods and Wild Oats were the only two premium natural and organic food markets nation-wide
• The district court found that Whole Foods and Wild Oats competed with other supermarkets and did not uniquely compete with each other appeals court disagreed
  地方法院认为，Whole Foods 和 Wild Oats 与其他超市存在竞争，并不存在独特的竞争关系 上诉法院不同意这一观点
• The court looks at markets where the two compete with each other - are the prices different than markets where the two stores are not in competition?
  法院会考察两家店相互竞争的市场--价格是否与两家店不竞争的市场不同？

US v. HR Block:

• Potential market for tax return companies
• Pencil and paper filing
• Computer assisted filing
• Accountant filing
• Are they substitute products?
• Not really - computer assisted would have to raise their price significantly to get the consumers to go to pen and paper filing
  并非如此--计算机辅助必须大幅提高价格，才能让消费者转而使用纸笔填报。
• Drobak believes that capacity to grow should be taken into account - the fact that they can compete with each other and distribute more software should be relevant
  Drobak 认为，应考虑到发展能力--它们可以相互竞争并分发更多软件的事实应与此相关
• The Court considers business documents from HR Block, testimony of witnesses, and analysis from economist
• Despite some efforts of do-it-yourself efforts to capture tax store customers, none of the major competitors set their prices based on consideration of assisted pricing
  尽管一些 "自己动手 "的企业努力争取税务商店的客户，但没有一个主要竞争者在制定价格时考虑到辅助定价的因素。
• Pen and paper are not a part of the market because the Court does not believe a sufficient number of consumers would switch to pen and paper in response to a small, but significant increase in DDIY prices
  纸笔不属于市场的一部分，因为法院不相信有足够数量的消费者会因为 DDIY 价格的小幅但大幅上涨而改用纸笔。
• The expert also notes that the market for tax purposes is inelastic and there are no alternatives
• The court says the tools of antitrust analysis cease because it is selfevidence that a monopolist of all forms of tax prep could impose a small, but significant price increase and not lose market share
  法院称，反托拉斯分析工具已经停止使用，因为不言而喻，所有形式的税前准备的垄断者都可以小幅但大幅提价，而不会失去市场份额。
• In that situation, HR Block could demand any price since taxpayers have no other choice

HORIZONTAL MERGER:

Mergers likely to produce coordinated effects.

Hospital Corp. of America:

• Because of the contracts in the city, the hospital market is shrinking from 11 to 7 in the Chattanooga area

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The 4 largest hospitals own of the market
• The fear is that consumers cannot really choose between hospitals and the hospitals could ban together against insurance providers, etc.
  人们担心的是，消费者无法真正在医院之间做出选择，医院可能会联合起来对付保险提供商等。
• Healthcare is an unusual market - consumers cannot shop around based on price; consumers do not feel it until the back end when they get the bill
  医疗保健是一个不寻常的市场--消费者无法根据价格货比三家；直到最后拿到账单时，消费者才会感觉到价格的变化
• On the other hand, insurance companies do care about price significantly
• Posner saw it both ways because insurance companies have the power to negotiate with the hospitals efficiently
• However, it could alter what premium they are going to charge in the aera or what coverage they are going to offer
• They may pass the cost on to the insured, we do not know
• There is another concern about wasteful investment, difficulty expanding, concerted action
• Technology has led to consolidation and FTC is careful with these cases because of fear of oligopoly in healthcare markets
• The commission offered various evidence to show the probability of anticompetitive effects
• (1) pointed out that the demand for hospital serves by patients and their doctors is highly inelastic
• The less elastic the demand for a good is, the greater the profits that providers can make by raising price through collusion

• A market in which competitors are disposed to cooperate is a market prone to collusion
• Contracts between hospital affiliates and two other hospitals gave it control over pricing for two of its competitors for some time
  附属医院与另外两家医院之间的合同使其在一段时间内控制了两家竞争对手的定价权

• One way of resisting this pressure is by presenting a united front in negotiations with the third-party payors
• Thus, the Court found risk of higher prices (higher prices do not have to actually result for there to be violation)

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Rule of law: to rebut a prima facie case of the anticompetitive effect of a horizontal merger, the must show that the prima facie case inaccurately predicts that the merger will harm the competition
  法律规则：要推翻横向兼并反竞争影响的表面证据， ，必须证明表面证据不准确地预测了兼并将损害竞争。
• The Court held that although the government presented prima facie evidence showing anticompetitive effects of the merger, Secoma had rebutted this presumption
  法院认为，虽然政府提出了初步证据，表明合并产生了反竞争影响，但山科马已经推翻了这一推定
• Reasons the merger is OK:
• Few barriers to entry
• 2 competitors entered the market in 1989
• Secoma presented evidence that the market in the US was very small and high concentration was normal
• Despite the high concentration, prices and product were stable
• Sophisticated market
• The buyers were huge oil companies, who are sophisticated and carefully examine the devices before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on them
  买家都是大型石油公司，他们非常老练，在花费数十万美元购买设备之前会仔细检查设备
• The market is huge oil companies - they are not easily manipulated, they are aware of reasonable prices, etc.
• Since the government did not present any other evidence after Secoma's rebuttal, the decision is affirmed

FTC v. Heinz. (post-merger efficiency)

• Rule of law: a defendant seeking to prove that anticompetitive effects of a merger will be offset by post-merger efficiencies must offer more than mere speculation that the efficiencies will actually benefit competition
  法律规则：被告若要证明兼并的反竞争影响将被兼并后的效率所抵消，就必须提供更多的证据，而不仅仅是推测这些效率确实有利于竞争。
• Section 7 of Clayton Act prohibits mergers that will substantially lessen competition by significantly increasing market concentration producing a firm with monopoly power
  克莱顿法》第 7 条禁止通过大幅提高市场集中度，使具有垄断实力的公司产生，从而大幅削弱竞争的兼并行为。
• Many courts recognize the availability of post-merger efficiencies as a defense to section 7 claims

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• The basic theory is that a merger should not be prohibited if the resulting efficiencies create pro-competitive market effects that outweigh the anticompetitive effects
  基本理论是，如果兼并产生的效率所带来的市场竞争效应大于反竞争效应，则不应禁止兼并。
• Recognized efficiencies:
• Better use of firm assets
• Higher quality products
• Lower production costs that lead to lower prices for consumers
• However, any alleged efficiencies must be weighed against a merger's anticompetitive effects
• Therefore, a merger in a highly concentrated market requires proof of extraordinary pro-competitive efficiencies
• The claimed efficiencies must not be obtainable from either merging company independently, meaning the pro-competitive benefits could be achieved without loss of competition
  所声称的效率必须是任何一家合并公司都无法独立获得的，这意味着可以在不丧失竞争的情况下实现有利于竞争的效益
• Here, Heinz claims that the merger will allow it to more efficiently use an underutilized plant, reducing production costs + it will help the competitor because the current plant they are using is outdated and inefficient
  在这里，亨氏声称，合并将使其能够更有效地利用利用率不高的工厂，降低生产成本 + 这将有助于竞争对手，因为他们目前使用的工厂已经过时，效率低下
• Heinz also claims the post-merger products will increase quality because sharing baby-food recipes
• The Court said Heinz failed to support either justification with data regarding production efficiencies of the combined companies + they failed to show that the claimed efficiencies could not be achieved without the merger
  法院称，亨氏未能提供有关合并后公司生产效率的数据来支持这两个理由 + 他们未能证明所声称的效率在没有合并的情况下无法实现
• Therefore, the evidence of the potential cost reduction was merely speculative, and the Court would not accept speculation as a pro-competitive justification
  因此，有关可能降低成本的证据只是推测，法院不会接受将推测作为有利于竞争的理由。

US v. Anthem: (merger-specific justification)

• Rule: a healthcare provider seeking to merger with another provider cannot overcome a change of anti-competitiveness if the provider does not demonstrate that the merger would create efficiencies that would overcome the anticompetitive effects of the merger
  规则：寻求与另一家医疗机构合并的医疗机构，如果不能证明合并将创造效率，从而克服合并的反竞争影响，则不能克服反竞争的变化
• Anthem argues that the anticompetitive efficiencies created by the merger would yield a superior Cigna product at Anthem's lower rates
  Anthem 辩称，合并带来的反竞争效率将使 Cigna 以更低的费率提供更优质的产品
• Anthem's experts presented evidence showing that the merger would create substantial savings
• The Court found that Anthem failed to demonstrate that its plan was achievable and there the merger would benefit consumers
  法院认为，安泰公司未能证明其计划是可以实现的，合并将使消费者受益
• Moreover, the efficiencies shown were not merger-specific aka they were not specific to Anthem product
• Because the efficiency cannot be achieved by either company alone, the merger's benefits could not be achieved without the loss of a competitor - in this case, Anthem has not shown that the merger will achieve the extraordinary efficiencies necessary to overcome the effects thus, Anthem's purported efficiencies are farfetched and speculative
  由于任何一家公司都无法单独实现这种效率，因此，如果不失去一个竞争者，合并的好处就无法实现----在本案中，安泰公司没有证明合并将实现克服影响所必需的非凡效率 ，因此，安泰公司所谓的效率是牵强附会和投机性的。

MERGERS THAT PRODUCE MONOPOLY AND DOMINANCE

• Look for evidence establishing that the merger will substantially reduce competition

Sirius XM Merger:

• The Court said there is no evidence establishing that combination of satellite radio providers would substantially reduce competition based on:
  法院称，没有证据证明卫星广播供应商的合并会大幅减少竞争，理由如下
• The likely future competition between Sirius and XM Radio
• The effect on competition in the retail channel
• Likely efficiency
• Effect of technological change
• The Court said they can compete after the long-term exclusivity contracts (5-years)
• There is competition at the whole sale level
• What competes with satellite radio?
• FM, Phone, Tape Cassette, CD
• All of these are part of the market
• Thus, we are not talking about merger to monopoly because these are other forms of radio competition
• Is this competition enough to keep price down?

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Yes, because the market for new customers is bigger so there is no worry about monopoly because other sources of audio will put pressure on the price
  是的，因为新客户的市场更大，所以不用担心垄断，因为其他音源会对价格造成压力
• The decision cannot be made on one subgroup of customers we have to aggregate competition
• Ex: Sirius had baseball and XM had Howard Stern
• You cannot make the decision off of the baseball or Howard Stern lovers, you have to aggregate the consumer base which overlooks those submarkets
  您不能根据棒球或霍华德-斯特恩（Howard Stern）爱好者的情况来做决定，您必须将忽略这些细分市场的消费者群体汇总起来
• The market is anyone listening to audio in cars
• The court said XM and Sirius are not the only competitors/will not create monopoly through merger

• Google proposed acquiring AdMob, the largest advertising network
• FTC opposed to the deal because they feared the merger would remove one of the only 3 important players in the market, but FTC later cleared the transaction
  联邦贸易委员会反对该交易，因为他们担心合并会使市场上仅有的三家重要企业之一消失，但联邦贸易委员会后来批准了该交易
• Both Google and AdMob produced the most revenue in the mobile advertising markets and both are particularly strong in different segments of the market (ad networks)
  谷歌和 AdMob 都在移动广告市场创造了最多的收入，而且都在不同的细分市场（广告网络）表现尤为突出
• The investigation showed that each of the merging parties viewed the other as its primary competitor and that each firm made business decisions in direct response to this competitive threat
  调查显示，合并双方都将对方视为自己的主要竞争对手，每家公司都直接针对这种竞争威胁做出了经营决策
• However, during the investigation, Apple acquired the third largest mobile Ad Network, and the FTC had reason to believe they would quickly become a strong advertising network competitor
  然而，在调查期间，苹果收购了第三大移动广告网络，美国联邦贸易委员会有理由相信他们将迅速成为广告网络的有力竞争者。
• Thus, there became no reason to believe that the competition would significantly lessen in light of further market development (i.e., Apple entering the market)
  因此，没有理由相信，随着市场的进一步发展（即苹果公司进入市场），竞争会明显减弱。
• Remember, big is not bad - what is bad is monopoly pricing
• Is there incentive to not engage in monopoly pricing?
• Yes, now there is because Apple has moved into the market

Boeing/McDonnel/ Doug/as:

• Boeing was the largest manufacturer of the commercial jet aircraft ( of world market), McDonnell Douglas had of market, and Airbus Industrie had of the market
  波音公司是最大的商用喷气式飞机制造商（占世界市场的 ），麦道公司占市场的 ，空中客车工业公司占市场的 。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Boeing and McDonnell were the only 2 US companies that had no assets in Europe, although they made sales there
• McDonnell failed to invest in commercial airline developments and was facing financial issues as a result
• Boeing, on the other hand, recently entered into a 20-year exclusivity deal with Delta, American, and Continental, consisting of of the world's aircraft sales
  另一方面，波音公司最近与达美航空公司、美国航空公司和美国大陆航空公司签订了为期 20 年的独家经营协议，占全球飞机销售量的 。
• Boeing and McDonnell merging would not lessen competition in either defense or commercial aircraft market because McDonnell currently did not have the capability to compete with the other plan producers and McDonnell aircrafts did not have the same features as Boeing
  波音和麦克唐纳合并不会减少国防或商用飞机市场的竞争，因为麦克唐纳目前还不具备与其他计划生产商竞争的能力，而且麦克唐纳飞机也不具备与波音相同的功能。
• Moreover, McDonnell could not generate valuable efficiencies in the interchangeable spare part and pilot training, which limited their sales with airlines who bought either Airbus or Boeing
  此外，麦克唐纳公司无法在可互换备件和飞行员培训方面创造有价值的效率，这限制了他们在购买空客或波音飞机的航空公司中的销售额。
• Boeing's entire purpose for acquiring McDonnell Douglas was not for commercial industry, it was for the defense industry
• Boeing was already going to get McDonnell's share of the commercial industry because they were going bankrupt/leaving the commercial industry anyways
  波音公司已经打算获得麦克唐纳在商用飞机领域的份额，因为无论如何他们都会破产或离开商用飞机领域。
• As a result, Boeing agreed to terminate the exclusivity agreements with Delta, American, and Continental until a later date amongst other pro-competitive terms because EU was strongly against the merger
  结果，由于欧盟强烈反对合并，波音公司同意终止与达美航空公司、美国航空公司和大陆航空公司的排他性协议，直到以后再签署其他有利于竞争的条款。

Ex: Coke/Pepsi:

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• Product Market Definition
• The did not meet their burden showing that the relevant market is limited to highfunctioning FMS and HRM
• The evidence presented did not show any evidence of excluding mid-market vendors, outsourcing or best of breed solutions from any product market
  所提供的证据没有显示任何证据表明中端市场供应商、外包或最佳解决方案被排除在任何产品市场之外
• The show no evidence of coordinated effects
• Plaintiffs argue against homogenous, making this difficult to show
• Also, there is no price transparency in the market - prices are only known to vendor and customers
• Plaintiffs show no unilateral effects
• Efficiencies (defense)
• For efficiency to be cognizable, it must be substantiated and verifiable
• The court finds that the claim of cost savings is flawed and unverified - they are too speculative
• Because the plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of proving relevant product market and geographic market, plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption of illegality under the law
  由于原告未能履行证明相关产品市场和地域市场的责任，原告无权根据法律推定其行为违法

HR Block:

• Court found both coordinated and unilateral effects were probable based on HHI
• did not rebut the presumption
• Reputation and strong brand names were barriers to keep small competitors and new entrants from challenging the major brands
  声誉和强大的品牌是阻止小竞争者和新进入者挑战大品牌的壁垒
• There were unilateral effects because HR and TaxAct were head-to-head competitors

Bazarvoice:

• Based on consumer reviews, Bazaar had market of , power reviews and others combined
• Government made prima facie claim under Philly Nat. Bank that the market was R&R platform
• While Bazaar would expand the market, the documents showed that it saw the market at R&R platforms
• They unsuccessfully pointed to Amazon and Google as potential entrants

1. Potential competition doctrine:

2. Wings Effect of Clayton

3. Potential de novo or foothold entry

Marine Bancorp:

• NBC, subsidiary of Marine Bancorp, is largest bank in Washington
• NBC wanted to merger with Washington Trust Bank, 3 rd largest bank in Spokane, Washington
• NBC was not in Spokane - which is Washington Trust only significant geographic market share
• The court applies all three tests above and determines that:
• (1) the market requires extensive state and federal regulations which essentially prevent NBC from entering the market by any other way other than acquiring a present bank
  (1) 市场需要大量的州和联邦法规，这些法规基本上阻止了 NBC 通过收购现有银行以外的任何其他方式进入市场
• (2) the acquisition would have no significant effects on the market
• There is no change in market structure because firm #3 only changes its name, but has the same market share as the bank that was there before
  市场结构没有变化，因为 3 号公司只是更改了名称，但市场份额与之前的银行相同
• (3) the potential competition doctrine will seldom bar a geographic market extension merger by a commercial bank (narrow)
• The court said they are not required to take over a smaller bank because the market share would be so small and room for expansion would be so minimal since of the market is left outside of the top 3 banks in Spokane.
  法院称，他们不需要接管一家较小的银行，因为市场份额太小，扩张空间也很小，因为 市场已经被斯波坎市的前三大银行所挤占。

• largest beer brewer in the world largest brewer in the world
• Plaintiff beer consumers allege that the merger removed all actual and perceived potential entrant within the parameters of Marine Bancorp
  原告啤酒消费者称，合并消除了 Marine Bancorp 范围内所有实际的和预期的潜在进入者。
• The District Court said the plaintiffs failed to support the allegations under Twombly standards
• The Appellate Court said plaintiffs were indirect purchasers and could not sue for damages
• Ultimately, the Appellate Court held that their substantive claims were speculative and InBev would suffer hardship and competitive disadvantage from forced divesture
  最终，上诉法院认为，他们的实质性诉求是推测性的， InBev 会因强制剥离而遭受困难和竞争劣势。
• Plaintiffs failed to show that InBev had any intent to enter the beer market in America before attempting to take over Anheuser-Busch (no evidence that InBev being in the "wings" of the market effected current beer distributors pricing/competitiveness of the market)
  原告未能证明 InBev 在试图收购 Anheuser-Busch 之前有任何进入美国啤酒市场的意图（没有证据表明 InBev 处于市场的 "两翼 "影响了当前啤酒经销商的定价/市场竞争力）。

Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com

• They did not prove that there were ever considered a "threat" to the beer market
• To show they were a firm in the "wings" they have to show they were always planning to enter the market, which affected the pricing of beer
  要证明他们是 "翅膀 "上的公司，就必须证明他们一直在计划进入市场，这影响了啤酒的定价
• The market did not change because AB just became owned by InBev
• The barriers to entry into the beer market were fairly low
• However, it is still difficult to get on the scale of Grey Eagle distribution
• Therefore, there has to be some limitations to not harm other beer companies
• It is difficult to determine what % of beer distribution would make a merger with Grey Eagle procompetitive

VERTICAL MerGERS (SUPPLIER/bUYER MERGING)

AT&T (Time Warner):

• Enjoining a transaction under antitrust law requires a showing of sufficiently probable and imminent likelihood of substantially lessening competition
  根据反托拉斯法禁止一项交易，需要证明有足够的可能性和迫在眉睫的可能性大幅削弱竞争
• The government alleges that AT&T and Time Warner merging would impede competition in video programming market
• Government also believes that AT&T will use Turner programming to thwart online distributors of similar content and impede entry to the market
  政府还认为，AT&T 将利用特纳的节目来阻挠类似内容的在线发行商，并阻碍其进入市场。
• Other MVPDs produced studies showing they would lose significant number of subscribers without Turner TV, which would force them to pay more for it than before
  其他 MVPD 进行的研究表明，如果没有特纳电视，他们将失去大量用户，这将迫使他们为特纳电视支付比以前更高的费用。
• Analysis:
• (1) show prima facie case by identifying the relevant market and show that the merger will impede competition in that market (must be SPECIFIC)
  (1) 通过确定相关市场，证明表面证据确凿，并证明兼并将阻碍该市场的竞争（必须具体说明）
• A vertical merger may impede competition by giving the merges company control of a competitively significant supplier and withholding supply unless competitors pay higher prices
  纵向兼并可能会阻碍竞争，因为兼并后的公司可以控制具有重要竞争地位的供应商，除非竞争对手支付更高的价格，否则就不供货
• The leverages you gain with merger to bargain - new benefits to the bargain and shifting consumers to themselves
• (2) after showing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to to show that the predictions are wrong or procompetitive justifications
  (2) 在证明表面证据确凿后， ，以证明预测是错误的或有利于竞争的理由。
• (3) if the burden returns to the government, they must produce additional evidence and this merges with its substantial burden of persuasion
  (3) 如果政府重新承担责任，他们必须提供更多证据，这与其说服的实质性责任合并
• Merges like this are suspect, but they can also be efficient
• Every vertical merger eliminates double marginalization (marginal profit the firm would charge disappears) there is no longer the supplier charging a profit on the cost of its supply, so you are eliminating one profit
  每一次纵向兼并都会消除双重边际化（企业收取的边际利润消失），供应商不再从其供应成本中收取利润，因此你就消除了一种利润。
• The court made this holding extremely fact specific making it difficult for appellate review

• To sue as a private party, you must show actual injury and economic injury
• The government does not have to show injury to have a claim
• To have standing, a plaintiff must allege injury that antitrust is designed to prevent for injunctive relief under of Clayton Act (Cargill v. Monfront of Colorado)
  根据《克莱顿法》（ ），原告必须指控反托拉斯旨在防止的伤害，才能获得禁令救济（嘉吉诉科罗拉多州 Monfront 案）。

Cargil/:

• There was no injury to justify a private suit
• Could the workers bring a claim for Monfort employees having financial injury due to loss of factory jobs and/or income?
• No, this is an economic injury, but it would not be considered by the court because that is not what the antitrust laws are designed to prevent
  不，这是一种经济损失，但法院不会予以考虑，因为这不是反托拉斯法要防止的行为
• We only concentrate on the anticompetitive injury

• AT&T wanted to merge with T-Mobile
• and largest telecom companies in the US
• AT&T argued that the merger was necessary to roll out 4G service and the markets were local, competition was vibrant
• AT&T sought to dismiss the suit claiming that the failed to allege that the merger would cause antitrust injury and therefore they lacked antitrust standing under of Clayton Act
  美国电话电报公司寻求驳回诉讼，声称 未能指控合并会造成反垄断损害，因此根据《克莱顿法》 ，他们缺乏反垄断资格。
• The Court granted the motion except to claims regarding mobile devices and Cellular South's roaming claim
• The Court assumes that AT&T merger violates of Clayton Act and turns to whether or not Sprint has alleged threatened injuries that stem from an aspect or effect of the merger that would make it illegal
  法院假定 AT&T 的合并违反了《克莱顿法》 ，并转而考虑斯普林特是否声称因合并的某个方面或影响而受到威胁伤害，从而使合并成为非法。
• In the cellular market, the firms compete both as sellers and buyers and compete vertically and horizontally in a variety of aspects
  在蜂窝市场上，企业既是卖方也是买方，在多个方面展开纵向和横向竞争

- Horizontal effects:

• The firms here compete horizontally as competitors in the wireless carrier market
• They compete in the output market (with smartphones, tablets, etc.) and the input market (with trying to secure the best mobile device brands for their customers to purchase)
  他们在输出市场（智能手机、平板电脑等）和输入市场（努力确保客户购买到最好的移动设备品牌）上竞争
• Wireless services market:
• Relevant price the monthly cost that consumers pay for postpaid wireless services and the bulk fee corporate and government entities negotiate for the same
  相关价格 消费者每月为后付费无线服务支付的费用，以及企业和政府实体为相同服务谈判的批量费用
• allege that the merger will affect an illegal concentration of market power and lead to higher retail wireless rates
• This, standing alone, does not allege any injury to Sprint itself it only alleges harm to consumers, not Sprint
• This does not show injury in fact regarding Sprint/competitors this only shows antitrust injury to consumers
• When alleging anticompetitive behavior has the effect of either raising prices or limiting output, it actually benefits competitors by making supercompetitive pricing more attractive
  当反竞争行为的指控具有提高价格或限制产量的效果时，它实际上有利于竞争者，使超级竞争定价更具吸引力
• an increase in market prices, alone, does not harm competitors
• Market for Wireless Devices:
• Plaintiffs allege that wireless device brands are becoming the primary driver in selection of wireless services
• Wireless carriers compete to secure the most desirable products for their consumers
• Sprint alleges that the increased market concentration will enable both AT&T and Verizon to coerce exclusionary deals without AT&T having gained the advantage through competition on the merits
  Sprint 声称，市场集中度的提高将使 AT&T 和 Verizon 都能强迫进行排他性交易，而 AT&T 并未通过竞争获得优势。
• Where a , by means of anticompetitive conduct, restricts or forecloses a competitor plaintiffs' access to a necessary input, court shave found that the resulting loss in is injury of the type that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent
  当 通过反竞争行为限制或阻止原告的竞争者获得必要的投入时，法院会认定由此造成的损失属于反垄断法旨在防止的损害类型。
• The Court must determine the sufficiency of the pleadings and the plausibility of their threat to injury in fact arising from monopsony power AT&T would gain in the market for mobile devices after the merger
  法院必须确定诉状是否充分，以及他们对合并后 AT&T 将在移动设备市场获得的垄断权所造成的事实损害的威胁是否可信。
• Where monopsony power is a concern, what matters is the market concentration on the buying side, not the selling side
• This merger would increase AT&T buying power, as to dictate terms to device manufacturers and otherwise impair ability to access these necessary inputs
  这一合并将增强美国电话电报公司的购买力，从而对设备制造商的条款发号施令，并以其他方式损害 获取这些必要投入的能力。
• The Court said that Sprint alleges sufficient facts to allege the possibility of injury in fact for a successful claim under Twombly
  法院称，斯普林特公司指控的事实足以说明存在事实损害的可能性，因此可以根据特翁布利案成功索赔

EXCLUSIONARY RESTRAINTS: THE CLAYTON AcT

• The analysis for exclusionary monopolization is the same here as it is for monopolization under Sherman Act
• Tying arrangements, exclusive dealing, requirement contracts, reciprocity agreements, etc.
• Under Section 3 of the Clayton Act - exclusive dealing
• Must know whether the firm has market power, why it imposed the restraint, did the restraint enhance or maintain market power, and if so, where there offsetting benefits to the consumers/market?
  必须了解公司是否具有市场支配力，为什么要实行限制，限制是否增强或维持了市场支配力，如果是，是否给消费者/市场带来了抵消利益？

- Tying Agreements:

• Tying entails selling on product on the condition that the buyer will buy another
• Sherman Act interpretation gravitated toward Clayton Act Standard, which was much lower
• Clayton Act has an incipiency standard

- Modern Tying Analysis

• A tying arrangement is not a per se violation of antitrust law if the company lacks market power in the tying market
• Analysis should focus on the market of the tied products and the likelihood of anticompetitive effects in those markets
• The majority in Jefferson Hospital argued that a tying arrangement is not a per se violation of antitrust if the arrangement does not result in a clearly unreasonable restraint of competition in the tying market
  杰斐逊医院案的多数法官认为，如果搭售安排没有对搭售市场的竞争造成明显不合理的限制，则搭售安排本身并不违反反垄断法。
• There must be some potential for substantial anticompetitive effects to justify a per se analysis over a rule of reason analysis, which looks into the market of the tied product and the effect on that market
  必须存在某种实质性反竞争影响的可能性，才有理由进行本身分析，而不是进行合理性规则分析，因为合理性规则分析考察的是被搭售产品的市场以及对该市场的影响。
• O'Connor concurrence proposed abandoning the per se rule entirely and only viewing tying arrangements under the rule of reason
  奥康纳（O'Connor）的赞同意见建议完全放弃 "本身 "规则，只根据 "合理规则 "看待搭售安排
• A tying arrangement should only be declared a violation of antitrust law if there is a clear economic argument for treating the two products as distinct and the anticompetitive effects outweigh the pro-competitive benefits
  只有在将两种产品视为不同产品有明确的经济论据，且反竞争影响大于促进竞争的利益时，才应宣布搭售安排违反反托拉斯法