Questions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Minor reformatting) |
(Added New class and a question) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization== | ==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization== | ||
==Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization== | ==Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization== | ||
==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct== | |||
===Question 1=== | |||
I'm still stuck on how embedding service in with United Shoe's leases was anti-competitive. I get that the lease was, but what is inherently anti-competitive to other shoe machinery sellers about offering a service with your lease? After all the lease was the industry standard since the civil war. I do get that this clause limited a third party service industry, but I don't understand how it was anti-competitive with regard to other shoe machinery manufacturers. | |||
===Answer 1=== | |||
Revision as of 13:15, 12 March 2008
This page is for any questions about the reading or class discussion
Class 1 - Introduction
Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization
Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization
Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct
Question 1
I'm still stuck on how embedding service in with United Shoe's leases was anti-competitive. I get that the lease was, but what is inherently anti-competitive to other shoe machinery sellers about offering a service with your lease? After all the lease was the industry standard since the civil war. I do get that this clause limited a third party service industry, but I don't understand how it was anti-competitive with regard to other shoe machinery manufacturers.