Antitrust Suit Research Articles

Predatory investment U.S. vs. IBM

This paper examines the most likely example of anticompetitive behavior uncovered in the U.S. vs. IBM antitrust suit: the introduction by IBM of its 360/90 ‘super computer’ in response to the introduction of a similar machine by a competitor. The two leading competing hypotheses are examined — that IBM introduced its system as a weapon of predation, and that IBM expected the system to be profitable — and both are found wanting. The paper concludes that IBM almost certainly knew that the system would be unprofitable, but that the hypothesis of predation is less appealing than that of product-market signaling.

Combination and Litigation: Structures of U.S. Film Distribution, 1896-1917

Every history of the early U.S. film industry is obliged to account for the appearance and disappearance of the first major attempt at monopoly: the Motion Picture Patents Company, organized in 1908. In these histories, the federal antitrust suit and the competitive techniques of the independents are generally determined to have been the causes of the Patents Company's failure. Perhaps the most extensive study, and the one on which current scholars rely, is by Ralph Cassady, Jr. His explanation has two 4parts. First, he believes the federal government's intervention in filing the antitrist suit in 1912 was early enough to encourage vigorous independent competition. Secondly, he maintains that the long-run monopoly problem in this case, as in others, perhaps is self-correcting and that, given time, new competitors and, indeed, new methods result in a dissipation of monopolistic control.'9 In two articles, Jeanne Thomas Allen has questioned Cassady's conclusions. As she pointsout, Cassadyis relying on a neoclassical economic model presumes the effects of the State are sporadic, and it intervenes only at necessary points. Furthermore, competition from new technology explains the industrial results. (Neoclassical economists would include the innovation of multiple-reel films under the term technology.) Allen suggests a Marxist analysis might provide a better account,2 and is what this article will seek to provide. Among other points, this study will show laws are not just used by businesses for appeal in the last resort nor are they static, but rather businesses constantly use the process of law as part of their operating tactics for gaining greater control of an industrial market. For example, at stake might be the definition or extent of a law. Or the current interpretation of a law might be changed, allowing companies to use the period of adjudication to their advantage. In this case, ownership and the legal use of patents were at issue. In addition, since both the Patents Company and the so-called independents used forms of Janet Staiger teaches film theory and history at New York University. She is co-author with David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson of The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (forthcoming).

Fee guidelines in antitrust suits: Excerpts from fine paper

Fee guidelines in antitrust suits: Excerpts from fine paper

Impact of deregulation on marketplace diversity in the USA

The current deregulatory mood sweeping Washington has changed the policy approach from one of government enforced diversity to one of marketplace-facilitated diversity. This is evidenced in the recent bills to revise the Communications Act of 1934, and the settlement of the AT&T antitrust suit. This article explores these public policy shifts as they relate to the information industries and suggests some impacts on the concept of diversity.

AT&T and the consent decree

For years AT&T has been accused of being too big, too powerful and too pervasive. Since the late 1960s, FCC decisions aimed at introducing limited competition in some areas of the telecomunications market have eroded AT&T's monopoly position. Then, in 1974, the Department of Justice filed its antitrust suit seeking to dismantle the Bell System. In January 1982, AT&T signed a Consent Decree requiring them to divest the local portions of its 22 Bell operating companies. In this comment, Charles Brown (Chairman of the Board of AT&T) describes the build-up to AT&T's decision to agree to divestiture, and outlines how AT&T os adapting to the new telecommunications environment.

Market Reaction to the Filing of Antitrust Suits: An Aggregate and Cross-Sectional Analysis

The data were obtained from the February 1982 International Financial Statistics. The IFS code is given in parentheses. The exchange rate was end-of-period exchange rate (AE). Real income was real GDP (U.K., Sweden, 99 B.P) and real GNP (Germany, Canada, U.S., 99 A.R). Interest rates were a Treasury bill rate (U.K., Canada, U.S., 60C), call money rate (Germany, 60B) and government bond yield (Sweden, 61). Money was (34). Prices were the consumer price index (64). REFERENCES

A Comparison Between the Food Ratio Poverty Line and the Leyden Poverty Line

as the cross-sectional characteristics of that process, which most other studies have not been able to undertake. We find that, on average, the price of a stock moves in a negative direction, significantly, and within 4 days in response to the filing of an antitrust suit by the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. Further, the magnitude of the response is related to variables that indicate the likely effects of the suit on future earnings.

Antitrust Suits by Targets of Tender Offers

One of the most effective defensive strategies is to invoke the aid of courts. The target argues that the acquisition proposed by the bidder would violate the antitrust laws.If the court enjoins the acquisition, even the most determined bidder must surrender. The managers of Grumman and Marathon defeated strong bids by LTV and Mobil in just this way.' And the strategy appears immune from complaints by shareholders. What could be objectionable about action by a target's management that protects shareholders from the consequences of an antitrust violation while simultaneously vindicating the public's interest in vigorous antitrust enforcement? We explore in this Article the basis and consequences of the target's suit under the antitrust laws.2 We approach the question from the perspective of federal antitrust law and state corporation law. We argue in Part I that the target is a singularly poor private attorney general because it is a beneficiary, not a victim, of any violation. An antitrust suit thus must be understood as an attempt by managers to defend their own positions, not as an attempt to vin-

Judicial Management of the Pretrial Process in Massive Litigation: Special Masters as Case Managers

This article reports on the experience of Special Masters appointed to regulate pretrial phases of a large civil antitrust suit. It describes techniques for expediting discovery, determining claims of privilege in production of documents, establishing stipulations of undisputed facts, and controlling and resolving disputes arising in discovery. It suggests a “managerial” approach to pretrial that is flexible and experimental and that may be useful in controlling the pretrial phase of other “big” cases.

AT&T Tries to Put Antitrust Suit on Hold

AT&T Tries to Put Antitrust Suit on Hold

Market Definition in Antitrust Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach

Alleged violations of either Sherman ?2's antimonopoly strictures or Clayton ?7's proscriptions against anticompetitive mergers, necessarily involve a particular product, and must occur in a particular place. That is, the plaintiff in either a ?2 or ?7 suit must define a relevant market within which the violation alleged has occurred.' Even in the most mundane antitrust analysis, however, market definition is rarely readily accomplished and unaccompanied by a series of caveats, and the possibility of the opposing parties in an antitrust suit failing to contest each other's proffered definition is virtually nil.2 Because economists, from

Competition policy and the medical profession.

Lewis Goldfarb, a young government lawyer living in Reston, Virginia, needed a title search for his new home and discovered that all the lawyers in the county quoted the same fee. In checking with the local bar association, he learned that these figures just happened to coincide with the fee schedule promulgated by the bar association. He brought an antitrust suit, which was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; in a ground-breaking decision in 1975, the court sustained his price-fixing complaint and held that the legal profession was subject to the Sherman Act.1 Up to that time it was widely . . .

English Language Publication and the British Traditional Market Agreement

Throughout most of the twentieth century, patterns for the international marketing of English language books were governed by the tenets of the British Publishers' Traditional Market Agreement. Formalized in 1947, but in practice long before that, the Traditional Market Agreement was a pact among British publishers designed to secure overseas markets for their publications. Claiming a group of about seventy countries as their traditional market, signatories agreed to neither buy nor sell publication and distribution rights to American publishers unless the rights for that market remained intact in British hands. In effect, the worldwide English language book market became divided into two spheres, the British and the American. While this division worked reasonably well for many years, by the 1970s the system was crumbling under the pressure of worldwide changes in book production, distribution, and consumption. An antitrust suit filed in 1974 by the United States Department of Justice against twenty-one...

The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself

Shows how antitrust suits adversely affect the consumer by encouraging a costly form of protection for inefficient and uncompetitive small businesses. Bork sees antitrust law as a microcosm which reflects the larger movements of our society, such as the tension between liberty and equality.

“Computers and the law”

This paper surveys current legal issues in the computer field and discusses the author's experience in twice teaching a course on computers and the law at Sangamon State University. Legal topics highlighted in the course include databanks and privacy; contracting for computer services; protection of proprietary software; tax treatment of computer software; liability problems in providing computer services; government regulation of the computer and communications industries; and the Justice Department's anti-trust suit against IBM. Teaching approaches for the non-lawyer are discussed and a bibliography is included. The primary purpose of this paper is to discuss the author's experiences in teaching, for the second time, a course at Sangamon State University, Springfield, Illinois, entitled “Legal Issues in the Computer Field,” and thereby stimulate interest in organizing similar courses at other universities. In addition, the author surveys the many topics that comprise the course content, and includes an abbreviated bibliography as an appendix.

Kodak found guilty in anti-trust suit

Photo Essay| February 01 1978 Kodak found guilty in anti-trust suit Afterimage (1978) 5 (8): 3. https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.1978.8.3 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Kodak found guilty in anti-trust suit. Afterimage 1 February 1978; 5 (8): 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aft.1978.8.3 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAfterimage Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1978 by The Regents of the University of California1978 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Bell Labs executives express concern over antitrust suit

Bell Labs executives express concern over antitrust suit

A Study of Prices and Market Shares in the Computer Mainframe Industry

The value of computer installations in the United States is currently around $30 billion and the computer hardware industry has an annual domestic sales rate of around $8 billion, making it one of the largest industries in the United States.' Furthermore, the industry is dominated by IBM, the fifth largest firm in the United States in terms of sales and assets.2 Because of the growing importance of the computer industry, IBM's domination has been receiving close attention both in Congress and in the antitrust courts. Thus the proposed Industrial Reorganization Act singles out the electronic computing and communications industry as one of seven to be studied by an Industrial Reorganization Commission, which would develop a plan for the reorganization of the industry.3 The plan would be implemented if any firm in the computer industry (presumably IBM) were found to be in possession of monopoly power as defined in the guidelines specified in Title I of the act. Second, IBM has been subjected to at least a dozen antitrust suits in the past six years, the most comprehensive of which is a Justice Department suit filed in 1969 which is still pending.4 The suit accuses IBM of violating the Sherman Act by monopolizing the market for generalpurpose digital computers and seeks to break IBM into a string of smaller companies. Among specific complaints in the suit are that IBM has used its accumulated software and related support to preclude its competitors from effectively competing . and that IBM has introduced selected computers, with unusually low profit expectations, in areas of the market

United States: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Decision in Pfizer v. Lord et al (Foreign Governments File Antitrust Suits against Pharmaceutical Firms; Damage Claims Based on Government Purchases; Claims on Behalf of All Foreign Citizens Represented by Governments)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Another view of the AT&T antitrust suit

Another view of the AT&T antitrust suit