A few more rounds left in My Game -) Mr. Francis Scarpulla and Guido Saveri et al. Class Bar Members! You didnt think I was done yet, did you? III. Boycott Law Applies This reminds of the conspiracy-crime of firm boycotts aimed at a competitor. These rules apply both generally and specifically in our matter: Certain kinds of agreements will so often prove so harmful to competition and so rarely prove justified that the antitrust laws do not require proof that an agreement of that kind is, in fact, anticompetitive in the particular circumstances. Boycotts are said to be unlawful per se but justifications are routinely considered in defining the forbidden category. The Court has found the per se rule applicable in certain group boycott cases. Thus, in Fashion Originators’ Guild of America, Inc. v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), this Court considered a group boycott created by an agreement among a group of … designers, manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers. The defendant designers, manufacturers, and suppliers had promised not to [deal with] … competing manufacturers and suppliers. The agreement in … Originators’ Guild involved what may be called a group boycott in the strongest sense: A group of competitors threatened to withhold business from third parties unless those third parties would help them injure their directly competing rivals. The freedom to switch … lies close to the heart of the competitive process that the antitrust laws seek to encourage. Cf. Standard Oil, 221 U.S., at 62 (noting “the freedom of the individual right to contract when not unduly or improperly exercised [is] the most efficient means for the prevention of monopoly”). At the same time, other laws, for example, “unfair competition” laws, business tort laws, or regulatory laws, provide remedies for various “competitive practices thought to be offensive to proper standards of business morality.” IV. Decisive Withdrawal Duty As experts in combating economic conspiracies, you, like former U.S. Attorney Thomas O’brien and others, are well versed in the duties incumbent upon those who either are involved or otherwise learn of their involvement in a conspiratorial ring. That said, I again provide the rule of duty - to remind: “A conspirator can withdraw from a conspiracy by: (1) disavowing the unlawful goal of the conspiracy; (2) affirmatively acting to defeat the purpose of the conspiracy; or (3) taking definite, decisive, positive steps to disassociate from the ring.” References In re HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002). Richard A. Posner, Antitrust: An Economic Perspective, Chapter 7, at pages 133-136 (1976). Competitive Strategy, Michael Porter (1980 Free Press); see Beasley v. Wells Farg, 235 Cal.App.3d 1395 (1991). Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al. 263 N.Y. 79 (1933). Richard A. Posner, Antitrust Law, An Economic Perspective, Chapter 7, page (University of Chicago Press, 1976). Information and Antitrust: Reflections on the Engineers and Gypsum Decisions, 67 Georgetown Law Journal 1187 (1979). NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. (96-1570) 525 U.S. 128 (1998). NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. (96-1570) 525 U.S. 128 (1998). NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. (96-1570) 525 U.S. 128 (1998). NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC.., 525 U.S. 128 (1998), citing Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶1510, p. 416 (1986). NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC.., 525 U.S. 128 (1998). United States v. Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2006). youtube/watch?v=IXdbCU3Mt_c
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:30:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015