1 / 7

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951)

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951).

kaiyo
Download Presentation

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951)

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. Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951) Basic Facts: Defendant, controller newspaper and radio station in Lorain, Ohio refused to accept advertising from Loraine merchants who also advertised in new competing radio station in adjoining town. Purpose was to force advertisers to boycott competing station and preserve its monopoly. What was defendant’s defense? What is the private right to select customers and do business with whomever you choose? How vulnerable is that right? What are attempt to monopolize elements? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  2. U.S. v. Griffith (1948) Basic Facts: Large theatre owner (53 towns monopoly, 32 not monopoly) negotiated blanket license with distributors to get first run of films in all theaters. Is large scale buying not illegal per se? Is a blanket license inherently suspect? How did blanket license help in 53 monopoly markets? Is it illegal to use monopoly power in one market to gain competitve advantage in a non-monopoly market? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  3. U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp (1954) • Basic Facts: USM manufactured over 75% of shoe-making machines that were offered under 10 year licenses that required their use to full capacity and locked users in. • What was the significance of conduct being “honestly industrial”? • How did court view inevitable consequence of ability, natural forces, or law? • How did court view impact of technology and innovation on competition? • How did court view its divestiture power? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  4. Essential Facilities and Duty to Deal U.S. v Terminal Railroad Assoc. of St. Louis (1912): Ct held that railroads who owned only railroad facility into St. Louis violated Sherman 1 and 2 by trying to control access of competitor railroads. Association must be an “impartial agent for all who, owing to conditions, are under compulsion to use its facilities.” Otter Tail Power v. U.S. (1973): Electric utility that previously sold to towns at retail refused to sell at wholesale to towns that had built their own transmission facilities or to “wheel” at wholesale for Bureau of Reclamation who agreed to sell to towns. Finding illegal monopolization, Ct said Otter Tail had used its ”strategic dominance to foreclose potential entrants. Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  5. Official Airlines Guides Inc. v. FTC (1980) Basic Facts: Publisher of official airline guide refused to include commuter airline schedules, which forced many to book commuter flights through major carriers. Commuters were at competitive disadvantage. Rationale for exclusion was that commuters were less reliable with schedules. How can this be distinguished from Loraine Case? Otter Tail case? Why was court concerned about limits of antitrust? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  6. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1985) Basic Facts: For many years, Aspen skiers could buy four day pass to ski all areas. Aspen acquired all players except Highlands (smaller, inferior resort) and then eliminated four day pass and offered only 3 day that excluded Highlands. When Highlands tried to offer vouchers to Aspen facilities to attract business, Aspen refused to honor vouchers. Jury awarded Highland $7.5 million treble damages, plus costs and atty fees. Court of Appeals affirmed. Did Aspen have monopoly power? What was alleged error, per Aspen? Was this essential facilities case? Who was hurt by what Aspen did? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

  7. Olympic Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union (1986) Basic Facts: Western Union desired to increase telex sales. Encouraged and assisted independents, like Olympic, to buy and lease terminals. When sales were slow, pulled support from independents (“flush these turkeys”) and decided to go direct to move inventory. Never denied services to customers of independents. Is Western Union any different than Aspen Ski? Was there an essential facility? Was the essential facility withheld to get preserve monopoly? What did Western Union do that hurt Olympic, an independent? Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake

More Related