1 / 16

Sherman Act Section 2 Committee Hot Topics in Monopolization Law

Sherman Act Section 2 Committee Hot Topics in Monopolization Law. “Section 2 in the Antitrust Division”. J. Bruce McDonald March 31, 2005. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISON DIVISION. Section 2 Hot Topics Your Panel.

duer
Download Presentation

Sherman Act Section 2 Committee Hot Topics in Monopolization Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sherman Act Section 2 CommitteeHot Topics in Monopolization Law “Section 2 in the Antitrust Division” J. Bruce McDonald March 31, 2005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUSTDIVISONDIVISION

  2. Section 2 Hot TopicsYour Panel • Bruce McDonald, DOJ – Section 2 in a Second Bush Administration • Aryeh Friedman, Program Chair – Trinko impact on price squeeze claims • Paul Hewitt, Akin Gump – How to exclude competitors using category management • Ken Glazer, The Coca-Cola Company – Worries of the dominant firm in the US and EU • Mary Anne Mason, Hogan & Hartson – EU takes on Microsoft

  3. Section 2 Hot TopicsDOJ Antitrust Division Enforcement Hierarchy • Criminal cartel conduct • Mergers • Civil violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2

  4. Section 2 Hot TopicsDOJ Antitrust Division Section 2 Enforcement • Harms from monopolization demand vigorous enforcement • Objective standards maintain balance and limit harm from unwarranted challenges • Section 2 caution justified by difficulty in distinguishing procompetitive and anticompetitive behavior

  5. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions District Court Findings: • Dentsply market share enough to infer monopoly power • Dentsply a price leader • Dentsply enforced exclusivity policy solely to exclude competitors • But for Dentsply exclusivity policy, prices would be lower • Dentsply justifications “pretextual” Judgment for Dentsply What happened?

  6. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions Additional District Court finding: • Direct sales a viable method of distribution No monopoly. No maintenance. No violation.

  7. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions (1) Monopoly power (2) Willful maintenance

  8. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions • Monopoly Power District Court: • High market share may ordinarily raise an inference of monopoly power • But not where there is evidence of a defendant’s inability to control prices or exclude competitors • Dentsply could not exclude because “direct selling to the laboratories is a viable …method of distribution”

  9. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions (1) Monopoly Power Appeals Court: • Monopoly power may be inferred from a predominant share of the market • But the ability to maintain market share is what counts • Market reality – Direct sales not a practical alternative • Market reality – Rivals could theoretically convince dealers to drop Dentsply, but that has not happened

  10. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions • Willful Maintenance • District Court: • No exclusionary conduct • “[B]ecause direct distribution is viable, non-Dentsply dealers are available, and Dentsply dealers may be converted at any time, the DOJ has failed to prove that Dentsply’s actions have been or could be successful in preventing ‘new or potential competitors from gaining a foothold in the market.’”

  11. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions (2) Willful maintenance Appeals Court: • “The proper inquiry is not whether direct sales enable a competitor to ‘survive’ but rather whether direct selling ‘poses a real threat’ to defendant’s monopoly.” U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 71 (D.C. Cir. 2001). • Small shares of competitors show that direct selling not viable • Many labs prefer to buy through dealers • Exclusivity “created a strong economic incentive for dealers to reject competing lines in favor or Dentsply’s teeth”

  12. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyCourt Decisions Appeals Court: Reversed and rendered

  13. Section 2 Hot TopicsU.S. v. DentsplyImportance of Dentsply Importance for Section 2 enforcement • Focus on market realities important under balanced Section 2 standards • Microsoft “significant contribution” standard demands real competition • Declined to follow old, tired, distinguishable exclusive dealing cases

  14. Section 2 Hot TopicsDOJ Antitrust DivisionFuture of Section 2 Enforcement At DOJ • Follow “no economic sense” standard • Prosecute violations vigorously • Clarify standards

  15. Section 2 Hot TopicsDOJ Antitrust DivisionFuture of Section 2 Enforcement DOJ study recommendations to Antitrust Modernization Commission • Be cautious about changing statutory language • Do Section 2 treble damages deter anticompetitive conduct or procompetitive conduct?

  16. Sherman Act Section 2 CommitteeHot Topics in Monopolization Law “Section 2 in the Antitrust Division” J. Bruce McDonald March 31, 2005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUSTDIVISONDIVISION

More Related