Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

15. Merger risk

 

17. Price predation

 

 

16. Introduction to Unilateral Conduct Offenses

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
The Moist Snuff Case
DOJ Microsoft case
FTC Google Search Engine Investigation
FTC Intel case
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 16 reading

Unit 16 class notes

 

Significant Precedents

Cases
 

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) (attempted monopolization)

 

United States v. United States Steel Co., 251 U.S. 417 (1920)

District court

Petition, United States v. United States Steel Co., No. Civ. 6214 (D.N.J. filed Oct. 27, 1911) (Blue Book No. 98)

Docket sheet

United States v. United States Steel Corp., 223 F. 55 (D.N.J. Jun 03, 1915)

Supreme Court

aff'd, United States v. United States Steel Co., 251 U.S. 417 (1920)

Commentary

James C. German, Jr., Taft, Roosevelt, and United States Steel, 34 The Historian 598 (1972).

 

United States v. Int'l Harvester Co., 274 U.S. 693 (1927)

District court

Petition in Equity, United States v. International Harvester Co., Eq. 624 (D. Minn. filed Apr. 30, 1912)

United States v. International Harvester Co., Eq. 624 (D. Minn. Aug. 15, 1914) (reported at 214 F. 987)

Decree (Aug. 15, 1914)

Order on Defendants' Motion to Modify (Oct. 3, 1914)

Final Decree (Nov. 2, 1918)

Supreme Court

International Harvester Co. v. United States, 248 U.S. 587 (1918) (dismissing appeal on motion of appellants)

District court

Supplemental petition (filed July 17, 1923) (seeking dissolution of the company into three parts)

United States v. International Harvester Co., Eq. 624 (D. Minn. 1926) (denying supplemental petition) (reported at 10 F.2d 827)

Supreme Court

Transcript fo Record (Index)

Brief on Behalf of the United States (Oct. 7, 1926)

Brief and Argument for Appellees (Oct. 18, 1926)

Appendix to Appellees' Brief (Oct. 18, 1926)

aff'd, United States v. Int'l Harvester Co., 274 U.S. 693 (1927)

 

United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)

Case history

Petiton, United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Eq, No. 85-73 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 23, 1937)

Docket sheet

Prior cases

Petiton, United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Eq, No. 159 (W.D. Pa. filed May 16, 1912)

United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Eq. 159 (W.D. Pa. June 7, 1912) (consent decree), reprinted in Decrees and Judgments in Federal Anti-Trust Cases: July 2, 1890-January 1, 1918, at 341 (1918).

Supplemental Decree (Oct. 25, 1922)

Commentary

± Spencer Weber Waller, The Story of Alcoa: The Enduring Questions of Market Power, Conduct, and Remedy in Monopolization Cases, in Antitrust Stories 121 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007).

± Marc Winerman & William E. Kovacic, Learned Hand, Alcoa, and the Reluctant Application of the Sherman Act, 79 Antitrust L.J. 295 (2013).

 

United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100 (1948)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Griffith Amusement Co., Civ. No. 172 (W.D. Okla. 1939)

Supreme Court

rev'd, United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100 (1948)

On remand

United States v. Griffith Amusement Co.,94 F. supp. 747 (W.D. Okla. 1950)

 

United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954) (per curiam)

District court

Complaint, United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., Civ. No. 7198 (D. Mass filed Feb. 18, 1954) (Blue Book No. 912)

Docket sheet

Supreme Court

aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954) (per curiam)

 

United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956) ("Cellophane") (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Civ. No. 1216 (D. Del. filed Dec. 13, 1947) (Blue Book No. 911)

United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 118 F. supp. 41 (D. Del. 1951)

Supreme Court

 

 

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Grinnell Corp., Civ. No. 2785 (D.R.I. filed Apr. 13, 1961) (Blue Book No. 1606)

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 236 F.Supp. 244 (D.R.I. 1964)

Supreme Court

aff'd, United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966)

 

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) (± Oyez)

District court

Second Amended Complaint, McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., No. 84-1585-E(CM) (S.D. Cal. filed July 21, 1986) (from Supreme Court Transcript of Record)

Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions

Final instructions (for attempt to monopolize)

Special Verdict Form (July 11, 1988)

Memorandum Decision, McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., No. 84-1585-E(CM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 1988) (from Supreme Court Transcript of Record)

Order (Jan. 19, 1988) (from Supreme Court Transcript of Record)

Notice of Appeal (Jan. 13, 1989) (from Supreme Court Transcript of Record)

Ninth Circuit

McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 907 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. July 3, 1990) (unpublished)

Surpeme Court

Petition for Certiorari

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (July 1, 1991)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Feb. 27, 1992)

Merits

Joint Appendix (Index)

Brief for Petitioners (May 28, 1992)

Brief for the Untied States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners (May 27, 1992)

Brief on the Merits by Respondents (June 26, 1992)

Reply Brief for Petitioners (July 24, 1992)

rev'd, Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (Jan. 25, 1993)

On remand

McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 23 F.3d 1531 (9th Cir. May 6, 1994) (No. 89-55326, 89-55329, 89-55332)

DOJ Section 2 Report

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (issued by the Bush administration on Sept. 11, 2008) (withdrawn by the Obama administration on May 11, 2009).

Chapter 1: Single-Firm Conduct and Section 2 of the Sherman Act: An Overview
Chapter 2: Monopoly Power
Chapter 3: General Standards for Exclusionary Conduct

 

DOJ Section 2 Report

DOJ Section 2 Report

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Sept. 2008) (± DOJ news release) (executive summary)

± Fed. Trade Comm'n, Press Release, FTC Commissioners React to Department of Justice Report, “Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act" (Sept. 8, 2008).

Statement of Commissioners Harbour, Leibowitz, and Rosch (Sept. 8. 2008)

Statement of Chairman Kovacic (Sept. 8, 2008)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Justice Department Withdraws Report on Antitrust Monopoly Law (May 11, 2009)

 

± J. Thomas Rosch, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Thoughts on the Withdrawal of the DOJ Section 2 Report, Remarks Before the IBA/ABA Conference on Antitrust in a Global Economy, New York, New York (June 25, 2009)

Hearings and working papers

± FTC web site on hearings and working papers

± DOJ web site on meetings, hearing transcripts, and speeches

Speeches

Thomas O. Barnett & Hill B. Wellford, The DOJ's Single-Firm Conduct Report: Promoting Consumer Welfare Through Clearer Standards for Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Oct. 2008)

Commentary:

± William Kolasky, The Justice Department's Section 2 Report: A Mixed Review, Antitrust Source, Oct. 2008.

The Moist Snuff Case

Complaint

Complaint, Conwood Company, L.P. v. United States Tobacco Co., No. 5:98-cv-108-R (W.D. Ky. filed Apr. 22, 1998)

Docket Sheet (downloaded Oct. 23, 2009) (case terminated Mar. 29, 2000)

Summary judgment

Memorandum, Opinion and Order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment (W.D. Ky. Feb. 17, 2000)

 
Judgment

Jury verdict in favor of plaintiff

JUDGMENT: by Judge Thomas B. Russell the Ct enters jgm in favor of plas Conwood, et al in the amt of $1,050,000,000, treble the jury verdict of $350,000,000 dismissing case (faxed: all counsel) [Entry Date: 3/29/00] (KJI) Modified on 03/29/2000 (Entered: 03/29/2000)

NB: The judgment apparently was stayed pending the exhaustion of appeals, but post-judgment interest continued to run. In January 2003, UST paid $1.262 billion to Conwood. See UST Inc., Form 10-K for the period ending Dec. 31, 2002, at 65 (filed Feb. 24, 2003)

Jury instructions

JMOL

Memorandum Opinion denying defendants' motion for jmol (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2000) (2000 WL 33176054)

 
Injunctive relief

Memorandum Opinion granting plaintiff's motion for permanent injunctive relief (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2000) (2000 WL 33176057)

 
Appeal

Memorandum Opinion re supersedeas bond (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2000)

Conwood Company, L.P. v. United States Tobacco Co., No. 00-6267 (6th Cir. May 15, 2002) (reported at 290 F.3d 768) (affirming jury verdict)

Sixth Circuit docket sheet (No. 00-6267) (downloaded June 21, 2014)

Petition for Certorari
 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Oct. 17, 2002)

Brief for Respondents in Opposition (Nov. 20, 2002)

Brief of the American Wholesale Marketers Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Nov. 20, 2002)

Motion for Leave to File Brief and Brief of Washington Legal Foundation, Stephen E. Fienberg, Franklin M. Fisher, Daniel L. McFadden, and Daniel L. Rubinfeld as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (No v. 20, 2002)

Reply Brief for Petitioners (Dec. 2, 2002)

Order (Nov. 13, 2003) (denying petition for certiorari)

Commentary
 

± Joshua D. Wright, Antitrust Analysis of Category Management: Conwood V. United States Tobacco Co. (George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series No. 06-38, 2009), final version at 17 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 311 (2009).

± Josh Wright, The Aftermath of a Type I Error: The Case of Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco, Truth on the Market.com (Oct. 17, 2007)

DOJ Microsoft Case

DOJ contempt case
   
DOJ monopolization case
   
—District court

Complaint, United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. filed May 18, 1998)

Assigned to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 1999) (findings of fact) (reported at 84 F. Supp. 2d 9)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2000) (conclusions of law) (reported at 87 F. Supp. 2d 30)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232(D.D.C. June 7, 2000) (remedy) (reported at 97 F. Supp. 2d 59)

Final Judgment

± DOJ web page

YouTube has the video of the Gates deposition. Start ± here and then follow the thread. (The heading says United States v. Microsoft Trial, but it is really the deposition.)

State case

New York. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1233 (D.D.C. filed May 18, 1998) (subsequently consolidated with DOJ case for pretrial and trial)

—D.C. Circuit

± United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 00-5212 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc) (reported as 253 F.3d 54), aff'g in part, rev'g in part, vacating remedy in full, and remanding in part, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)

Also ordering the case to be assigned to a new district judge

 
—Petition for writ of certiorari

 

 
—DOJ settlement

Reassigned to Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly

United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Revised Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,452 (Nov. 28, 2001)

United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments, 67 Fed. Reg. 23,654 (May 3, 2002)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002)

Opinion, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2002) (reported at 231 F.Supp.2d 144) (final consent decree)

Final Judgment, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2002) (for settling plaintiffs United States, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin)

 

Settling plaintiff states

Memorandum Opinion, New York v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1233 (CKK) (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2012) (approving joining of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to DOJ settlement)

Order (Nov. 1, 2012)

 

—Appeal of settlment

aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom, Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., No. 02-7155 (D.C. Cir. June 30, 2004) (reported at 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

 
—Trial on remedy for nonsettling plaintiffs

Plaintiff Litigating States’ Remedial Proposals (Dec. 7, 2001)

Proposed Final Judgment (Dec. 7, 2001)

New York v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1233 (CKK) (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2002) (reported at 224 F. Supp. 2d 76)

Final Judgment (Nov. 1, 2002)

Executive Summary (Nov. 1, 2002)

aff'd sub nom. Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., 373 F.3d 1199 (D.C.Cir. Jun 30, 2004) (Nos. 02-7155, 03-5030)

 
Commentary
 

± William H. Page, Microsoft and the Limits of Antitrust (University of Florida Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-40, 2009), final version at 6 J. Competition L. & Econ. 33 (2009)

± A. Douglas Melamed & Daniel Rubinfeld, U.S. v. Microsoft: Lessons Learned and Issues Raised, in Antitrust Stories 287 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007)

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Maintenance of Monopoly: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001), in The Antitrust Revolution 530 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed., 2009)

± Carl Shapiro, Microsoft: A Remedial Failure, 75 Antitrust L.J. 739 (2009)

± David S. Evans, Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, U.S. v. Microsoft: Did Consumers Win? (NBER Working Paper No. 11727, Oct. 2005)

± Franklin M. Fisher & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, U.S. v. Microsoft - An Economic Analysis, Antitrust Bull., Spring 2001, at 1.

± Richard J. Gilbert & Michael L. Katz, An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 25 (2001)

± Benjamin Klein, The Microsoft Case: What Can a Dominant Firm Do to Defend Its Market Position?, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 45 (2001)

± Michael Whinston, Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 63 (2001)

± Timothy F. Bresnahan, A Remedy that Falls Short of Restoring Competition, Antitrust, Fall 2001, at 67.

Videos:

± US v Microsoft: 10 Years Later - David Boies

FTC Google Search Engine Investigation

FTC investigation

FTC Bureau of Competition complaint recommendation (Aug. 8, 2012) (redacted)
Note: This document was inadvertently released to the Wall Street Journal in response to an FOIA request

Fed. Trade Comm'n, Press Release, Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search (Jan. 3, 2013)

Letter to Jon Leibowitz, Chairman, Fed. Trade Comm'n from David Drummond, Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google Inc. (Dec. 27, 2012)

Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Google’s Search Practices, In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File Number 111-0163 (Jan. 3, 2013)

Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch Regarding Google's Search Practices, In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File Number 111-0163 (Jan. 3, 2013)

Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen, In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File Number 111-0163 (Jan. 3, 2013)

± FTC web page

± Google Inc., Official Blog, The Federal Trade Commission Closes its Antitrust Review (Jan. 3, 2013)

The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, S. Hrg. 112–168, 112th Cong. (2011).

± Subcommittee web cast

Testimony of Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc. (Sept. 21, 2011)

± Google Inc., Facts about Google and Competition: A Guide to the Senate Judiciary Hearing (Sept. 19, 2011)

 

Commentary

 

± Amir Efrati & Brent Kendall, Google Dodges Antitrust Hit, WSJ.com, Jan. 3, 2013

± Brody Mullins, Rolfe Winkler & Brent Kendall, Inside the U.S. Antitrust Probe of Google, WSJ.com, Mar. 19, 2015.

± Rolfe Winkler & Brent Kendall, Excerpts from FTC Staff Report on Google’s Search Practices, WSJ.com, Mar. 19, 2015

± Rolfe Winkler, Google Avoided FTC Probe but Others Loom, WSJ.com, Mar. 19, 2015

+ Brody Mullins, Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House, WSJ.com, Mar. 24, 2015.

EU investigation

European Comm'n, Press release, Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google (Nov. 30, 2010)

European Comm'n, Press release, Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on comparison shopping service; opens separate formal investigation on Android (Apr. 15, 2015)

European Comm'n, Fact Sheet, Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on comparison shopping service (Apr. 15, 2015)

Statement by Commissioner Vestager on antitrust decisions concerning Google (Apr. 15, 2015)

Android invetigattion

European Comm'n, Fact Sheet, Antitrust: Commission opens formal investigation against Google in relation to Android mobile operating system (Apr. 15, 2015)

Commentary
 

± Richard Waters, Christian Oliver & Alex Barker, How Google Found Itself ‘on the Wrong Side of History, FT.com, Apr. 17, 2015.

FTC Intel Monopolization Case

Complaint

Administrative Complaint, In re Intel Corp., No. 9341 (F.T.C. filed Dec. 16, 2009)

Fed. Trade Comm'n, News Release, FTC Challenges Intel's Dominance of Worldwide
Microprocessor Markets
(Dec. 16, 2009)

Statement of Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch

Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rosch

Docket Sheet (downloaded Sept. 5, 2014)

Answer of Respondent Intel Corporation

± FTC web page

Consent decree

Fed. Trade Comm'n, News Release, FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel (Aug. 4, 2010)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (Aug. 4, 2010)

Decision and Order (Aug. 4, 2010)

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Aug. 4, 2010)

Order Withdrawing Matter from Adjudication ror the Purpose of Considering a Proposed Consent Agreement (June 21, 2010)

 

Fed. Trade Comm'n, News Release, FTC Approves Modified Intel Settlement Order (Nov. 2, 2010)

Decision and Order (Nov. 2, 2010) (final order as modified following public comment)

Commentary
 

± Wall St. J., Editorial, The 100 Years Chip War, Dec. 18, 2009.

± Dominick T. Armentano, FTC's Dismal History of Antitrust Attacks, Wall St. J., Letter to the Editor, Dec. 23, 2009.

± Josh D. Wright, Armentano in the WSJ, Abolition and Antitrust Fairy Tales, Truth on the Market.com, Dec. 28, 2009.

± Joshua D. Wright, Does Antitrust Enforcement In High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC V. Intel (Oct. 22, 2010)

± Joseph Farrell, Janis K. Pappalardo & Howard Shelanski, Economics at the FTC: Mergers, Dominant]Firm Conduct, and Consumer Behavior (____), final version at 37 Rev. Indus. Org. 263 (2010).

± Lona Fowdur, The Intel-AMD Antitrust Suits: Economic Issues and Implications (2010).

± Daniel A. Crane, Reflections on Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FTC’s Case against Intel (Jan. 19, 2010).

± Herbert Hovenkamp, The FTC’s Anticompetitive Pricing Case Against Intel (2010).

± Daniel A. Crane, Predation Analysis and the FTC’s Case against Intel (may 25, 2010).

Reference Materials

Other interesting foreclosure cases

Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., No. 07-16151 (9th Cir. June 5, 2009) (reversing and remanding dismissal of complaint) (reported at 567 F.3d 1084)

Docket sheet, Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., No. 5:05-cv-04826-RMW (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 28, 2005) (downloaded Apr. 4, 2010)
Second amended complaint (Dec. 28, 2006)
Order Granting Verisign's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (May 14, 2007)

Complaint, In re Transitions Optical, Inc., No. C-4288 (F.T.C. filed Mar. 3, 2010) (± FTC web page) (industry structure illustration)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (Mar. 3, 2010)
Analysis To Aid Public Comment (Mar. 3, 2010)
News release (Mar. 3, 2010)
Final Decision and Order (Apr. 27, 2010)

Enforcement policy

± Jonathan B. Baker, Preserving a Political Bargain: The Political Economy of the Non-Interventionist Challenge to Monopolization Enforcement, 76 Antitrust L.J. 605 (2010).

Single firm conduct generally

± Dennis W. Carlton & Ken Heyer, Appropriate Antitrust Policy Towards Single-Firm Conduct (Economic Analysis Group Discussion Paper No. EAG 08-2, Mar. 2008)

± Jonathan M. Jacobson, Towards a Consistent Antitrust Policy for Unilateral Conduct, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009

± Keith N. Hylton, The Law and Economics of Monopolization Standards. Antitrust Law and Economics (Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 08-18, 2009).

Proving monopoly power/dominance

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Evidentiary Issues in Proving Dominance (DAF/COMP(2006)35, Oct. 9, 2008).

Economics of foreclosure

± Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, A Primer on Foreclosure (Jan. 30, 2006), final version published in 3 Handbook of Industrial Organization 2145 (Mark Armstrong & Robert H. Porter eds., 2007)

± Hans-Theo Normann, Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure in the Repeated Game (Jan. 14, 2005)

Janusz A. Ordover, Garth Saloner & Steven C. Salop, Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure, 80 Am. Econ. Rev. 127 (1990)

David Reiffen, Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure: Comment, 82 Am. Econ. Rev. 694 (1992)

Janusz A. Ordover, Garth Saloner & Steven C. Salop, Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure: Reply, 82 Am. Econ. Rev. 698 (1992)

Steven C. Salop & David T. Scheffman, Raising Rivals' Costs, 73 Am. Econ. Rev. 267 (1983).

Exclusionary acts
 
—Unilateral secondary boycott

Complaint, In re Pool Corp., ____ (FTC filed Nov. 21, 2011)

Statement of Commissioner Brill, Chairman Leibowitz, and Commissioner Ramirez (Nov. 21, 2011)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rosch (Nov. 21, 2011)

Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Nov. 21, 2011)

Decision and Order (Nov. 21, 2011)

Analysis To Aid Public Comment (Nov. 21, 2011)

—Direct refusal to deal

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) (± Oyez) (jury instructions)

± Warren S. Grimes, A Tale of Two Ski Towns: New Perspectives on a Dominant Firm’s Refusal to Deal with a Rival (Southwestern Law School Working Paper No. 1021, Aug. 9, 2010).

Jeffrey T. Macher & John W. Mayo, Making a Market out of a Mole Hill? Geographic Market Definition in Aspen Skiing, __ J Competition L & Econ. ___ (2010).

George Priest & Jonathan Lewinsohn, Aspen Skiing: Product Differentiation and Thwarting Free Riding as Monopolization, in Antitrust Stories 229 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007)

± Robert Pitofsky, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law, submitted to the European Commission in support of National Data Corporation in its essential facilities case against IMS.

—Exclusion through exclusive dealing

See Unit 15: Exclusive Contracts

—Exclusion through false advertising

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc., Nos. 10-2353, 10-2355 (6th Cir. Sept. 13, 2012) (reported as 694 F.3d 723)

American Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. American Bd. of Podiatric Surgery, No. 01-1578 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2003) (reported as 323 F.3d 366)

—Monopoly leveraging

Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)

Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner

—Exclusion through innovation

Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP, Nos. 08-56314, 08-56315 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010) (reported at 592 F.3d 991)

± Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979)

± In re Indep. Serv. Org. Antitrust Litig., 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

Commentary:

± Suzanne Van Arsdale & Cody Venzke, Predatory Innovation In Software Markets, 29 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 243 (2015).

± Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, Antitrust in Innovative Industries, 97 Am. Econ. Rev. 1703 (2007).

—Indirect technological exclusion

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01111-JSR (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 23, 2013) (original complaint filed Feb. 15, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 26, 2013)

Opinion and Order (Dec. 6, 2013) (dismissing complaint)

Judgment (Dec. 10, 2013)

—Commentary

Mark S. Popofsky, Defining Exclusionary Conduct, 73 Antitrust L.J. 435 (2006).

Thomas G. Krattenmaker & Steven C. Salop, Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals' Costs to Achieve Power over Price, 96 Yale L.J. 209 (1986).

Horizontality requirement

NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998) (± Oyez)

Injunctive relief
 
Damages

Chiara Fumagalli, Jorge Padilla & Michele Polo, Damages for Exclusionary Practices: A Primer (Mar. 1, 2010).

Criminal enforcement

American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946)

Information, United States v. American Tobacco Co., Crim. No. 6670 (E.D. Ky filed July 24, 1940)

Use of FTC Act § 5
—Merits

Cases:

FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972) (scope of Section 5)
± Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. FTC, 630 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1980)
± E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1984), vacating 101 F.T.C. 425 (1983) (Ethyl)
± Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 837 F.2d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

Commentary:

Joshua D. Wright, Comm'r, Fed. Trade. Comm'n, Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (June 19, 2013).

Joshua D. Wright, Comm'r, Fed. Trade. Comm'n, Section 5 Recast: Defining the Federal Trade Commission’s Unfair Methods of Competition Authority (June 19, 2013).

Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Comm'r, Fed. Trade. Comm'n, Section 5: Principles of Navigation, Remarks Before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (July 25, 2013).

Maurice Stucke, A Response to Commissioner Wright’s Proposed Policy Statement Regarding Unfair Methods of Competition,Competition Pol'y Int'l, Sept. 16, 2013.

Steven C. Salop, Guiding Section 5: Comments on the Commissioners (2013).

Letter to Chairwomen Edith Ramirez from Republican Congressmen (Oct. 23, 2013).

Edith Ramirez, Chairwomen, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Unfair Methods and the Competitive Process: Enforcement Principles for the Federal Trade Commission’s Next Century, Keynote Address to the Competition Law & Economics Symposium for International Competition Officials, George Mason University School of Law (Feb. 13, 2014)

± J. Thomas Rosch, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, The Great Doctrinal Debate: Under What Circumstances is Section 5 Superior to Section 2?, Remarks Before the New York State Bar Association Annual Antitrust Conference, New York City (Jan. 27, 2011).

± William E. Kovacic & Marc Winerman, Competition Policy and the Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 76 Antitrust L.J. 929 (2010).

Herbert J. Hovenkamp, The Federal Trade Commission and the Sherman Act, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 871 (2010).

± William E. Kovacic, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, The Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, PowerPoint presentation to the ABA Fall Forum, Washington, D.C. ( Nov. 12, 2009).

± J. Thomas Rosch, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Wading Into Pandora’s Box: Thoughts on Unanswered Questions Concerning the Scope and Application of Section 2 & Some Further Observations on Section 5, Remarks Before the LECG Newport Summit on Antitrust Law & Economics (Oct. 3, 2009).

± Susan A. Creighton & Thomas G. Krattenmaker, Appropriate Role(s) for Section 5, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009.

± Albert A. Foer, Section 5 as a Bridge Toward Convergence, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009.

± Robert H. Lande, Revitalizing Section 5 of the FTC Act Using “Consumer Choice” Analysis, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009.

± Thomas B. Leary, A Suggestion for the Revival of Section 5, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009.

± William H. Page, The FTC’s Procedural Advantage in Discovering Concerted Action, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2009.

Chevron deference

± Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Chevron and the Limits of Administrative Antitrust (Dec. 24, 2013).

Tension between the DOJ and FTC

± Steven Pearlstein, In this Antitrust Slugfest, Consumers Always Lose, Washington Post.com (May 7, 2011)

± J. Thomas Rosch, Obama's Political "Price-Gouging", WSJ.com (May 2, 2011) (letters to the editor)

± Thomas Catan, This Takeover Battle Pits Bureaucrat vs. Bureaucrat, WSJ.com (Apr. 12, 2011).

Excessive pricing

Case No. 48/CR/Aug10, Comm'n v. Sasol Chem. Indus. Ltd., Competition Tribunal of South Africa (June 5, 2014)

Contrasts with the European Union

European Comm'n, Guidance on its enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 (EC) to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, 2009 O.J. (C 45) 7 (formally adopted in all Union languages on 9 February 2009) (± EU web page)

± Frederic M. Scherer, Abuse of Dominance by High Technology Enterprises: A Comparison of U.S. and E.C. Approaches (Nov. 11, 2010), final version at 38 Economia e Politica Industriale 39 (2011)

± Eleanor M. Fox, Monopolization, Abuse of Dominance, and the Indeterminacy of Economics: The U.S./E.U. Divide, 2006 Utah L. Rev. 725 (2006)

± John Vickers, Some Economics of Abuse of Dominance (Oxford Univ. Dept. of Economics Nov. 2007)

Business torts v. antitrust violations

± Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520, 563 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting in part)

Case Studies

Cardinal Health (FTC 2015)
Actavis "product hopping" case (NY 2014)
CollegeNet, Inc. (private 2014)
Warner Chilott (private 2012)
Pacific Seafood Group (private 2010)
Google—Europe
Microsoft—U.S.
Microsoft—EU
Novell-Microsoft (Utah)
Novell-Microsoft (Maryland)
Novell-Microsoft (Utah remand)
AMD-Intel
Intel-AMD Insurance
Intel-FTC
Intel-NY
Intel-EU
United States v. United Regional Health Care System

Cardinal Health
(FTC 2015)

Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, No. 15-cv-3031 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 20, 2015) (FTC news release) (allegedly that Cardinal Heath illegally monopolized 25 local markets for the sale and distribution of low-energy radiopharmaceuticals and forced hospitals and clinics to pay inflated prices for these drugs; settled by consent decree, including $26.8 million in disgorgement for distribution to injured customers).

[Proposed] Final Order and Stipulated Permanent Injunction

Statement of the Federal Trade Commission (Apr. 20, 2015)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen (Apr. 20, 2015)

Dissenting Statement Of Commissioner Joshua D.Wright (Apr. 20, 2015)

Actavis "product hopping" case
(New York 2014)

Complaint, New York v. Actavis plc, No. 1:14-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 15, 2014) (redacted version filed Sept. 19, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 13, 2015)

Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 2, 2014)

New York’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Sept. 24, 2014) (redacted version filed Oct. 30, 2014)

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 24, 2014) (redacted version filed Oct. 30, 2014)

Redacted Opinion (Dec. 11, 2014)

Order (Dec. 15, 2014)

Notice of Appeal (Dec. 16, 2014)

Appeal to the Second Circuit

Page Proof Brief of Defendants-Appellants (Under Seal) (Jan. 8, 2015) (redacted)

 

 

Amended Complaint (Nov. 5, 2014) (redacted version filed Dec. 10, 2014)

Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 7, 2014) (redacted version filed Dec. 10, 2014)

Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Nov. 7, 2014) (redacted version filed Dec. 10, 2014)

New York’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Nov. 21, 2014) (redacted version filed Dec. 11, 2014)

Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Nov. 24, 2014) (redacted version filed Dec. 10, 2014)

 

CollegeNet
(private 2014)

Complaint, CollegeNET, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00771 (D. Or. May 8, 2014)

Warner Chilcott
(private 2012)

Complaint, Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., No. 12-3824 (E.D. Pa. filed July 6, 2012)

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., No. 12-3824 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 17, 2012) (original complaint filed July 6, 2012)

Class Action Complaint, IBEW v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., No. 12-5410 (E.D. Pa. filed Sept. 21, 2012) (indirect purchasers)

± Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 28, 2012)

Defendant Warner Chilcott’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Mylan’s Complaint and the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Oct. 1, 2012)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Warner Chilcott’s Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 1, 2012)

Exhibits in Support of Defendant Warner Chilcott’s Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 1, 2012)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Summary Submission in Response to Defendants’ 12(b)(6) Motions (Oct. 9, 2012)

Plaintiff Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Nov. 15, 2012)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Nov. 15, 2012)

Order (Oct. 26, 2012) (granting request for consolidation)

Defendant Warner Chilcott’s Motion to Dismiss the IBEW Indirect Purchaser Class Action Complaint (Oct. 31, 2012)

Memorandum in Support of Defendant Warner Chilcott’s Motion to Dismiss the IBEW Indirect Purchaser Class Action Complaint (Oct. 31, 2012)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the IBEW Indirect Purchaser Class Action Complaint (Nov. 15, 2012)

Notice of Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae (Nov. 21, 2012) (filed by the FTC)

Federal Trade Commission Brief As Amicus Curiae

Defendants’ Memorandum In Opposition to Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (Nov. 23, 2012)

Pacific Seafood Group (Whaley)
(private 2010)

Complaint, Whaley. Pacific Seafood Group, No.10-3057(D. Or. filed June 22, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 10, 2015)

Order (Mar. 1, 2012) (denying preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from communicating with each other regarding fish prices)

Order (Jan. 31, 2012) (certifying class)

Stipulation and Resolution Agreement of Class Action Claims (Apr. 2, 2012)

Judgment and Order of Dismissal (May 21, 2012)

Order (May 22, 2012) (approving stipulation and resolution agreement, as amended and granting plaintiffs attorney's fees of $2,595,855 and costs of $304,145)

Attorenys' fees dispute

Unopposed Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel (Feb. 15, 2012)

Complaint, Mayer Brown LLP v. Dulcich Inc. (d/b/a Pacific Seafood Group), No. 2012-CA-005830 (Sup. Ct. D.C. filed July 18, 2012)

Malpractice

Notice fo Removal (Jan. 2, 2013)

Second Amended Complaint (Professional Negligence - Declaratory Judgment – Contract), Dulcich, Inc. (d/b/a Pacific Seafood Group) v. Mayer Brown LLP, No. 3:13-cv-00003-ST (D. Or. filed Jan. 10, 2013)

Findings and Recommendations (Mar. 19, 2013)

Order (June 18, 2013)

Judgment of Remand (June 21, 2013)

 

Google—Europe

Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Competition Policy, Statement on the Google antitrust investigation (May 21, 2012).

Commentary:

± Nathan Newman, Why EU Antitrust Focus on Google and Data Portability Matters—and Why It's Probably Not Enough, Huffingtonpost.com (May 22, 2012).

Microsoft—U.S.

District court

Complaint, United States v. Microsoft Corp., (D.D.C. filed May 18, 1998)

YouTube has the video of the Gates deposition. Start ± here and then follow the thread. (The heading says United States v. Microsoft Trial, but it is really the deposition.)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232(D.D.C. Nov. 5, 1999) (findings of fact) (reported at 84 F. Supp. 2d 9)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2000) (conclusions of law) (reported at 87 F. Supp. 2d 30)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. A. No. 98-1232(D.D.C. 2000) (remedy) (reported at 97 F. Supp. 2d 59)

Final Judgment

D.C. Circuit

± United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2001), aff'g in part, rev'g in part, and remanding in part, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)

DOJ Settlement

United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Revised Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 66 Fed. Reg. 59,452 (Nov. 28, 2001)

United States v. Microsoft Corporation; Public Comments, 67 Fed. Reg. 23,654 (May 3, 2002)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1, 23 (D.D.C. 2002)

Opinion, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2002) (reported at 231 F.Supp.2d 144) (final consent decree)

Final Judgment, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. Civ. A. No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2002) (for settling plaintiffs United States, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin)

Appeal by nonsettling plaintiffs

Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp., No. 02-7155 (D.C. Cir. June 30, 2004)

± DOJ web page

Commentary:

± William H. Page, Microsoft and the Limits of Antitrust (University of Florida Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-40, 2009), final version at 6 J. Competition L. & Econ. 33 (2009)

± A. Douglas Melamed & Daniel Rubinfeld, U.S. v. Microsoft: Lessons Learned and Issues Raised, in Antitrust Stories 287 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007)

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Maintenance of Monopoly: U.S. v. Microsoft (2001), in The Antitrust Revolution 530 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed., 2009)

± Carl Shapiro, Microsoft: A Remedial Failure, 75 Antitrust L.J. 739 (2009)

± David S. Evans, Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, U.S. v. Microsoft: Did Consumers Win? (NBER Working Paper No. 11727, Oct. 2005)

± Franklin M. Fisher & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, U.S. v. Microsoft - An Economic Analysis, Antitrust Bull., Spring 2001, at 1.

± Richard J. Gilbert & Michael L. Katz, An Economist’s Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 25 (2001)

Benjamin Klein, The Microsoft Case: What Can a Dominant Firm Do to Defend Its Market Position?, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 45 (2001)

± Michael Whinston, Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know, 15 J. Econ. Perspectives 63 (2001)

± Timothy F. Bresnahan, A Remedy that Falls Short of Restoring Competition, Antitrust, Fall 2001, at 67.

Videos:

± US v Microsoft: 10 Years Later - David Boies

Microsoft—EU

European Comm'n, Press Release No. IP/00/906, Commission opens proceedings against Microsoft's alleged discriminatory licensing and refusal to supply software information (Aug. 3, 2000).

European Comm'n, Press Release No. IP/03/1105, Commission gives Microsoft last opportunity to comment before concluding its antitrust probe (Aug. 6, 2003).

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 370th meeting on 15 March 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft, 2007 O.J. (/C 26) 2 (EC).

Final report of the hearing officer in Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft, 2007 O.J. (C 26) 4 (EC) (from Mar. 18, 2004).

Case COMP/C-3/37.792, Microsoft, Commission decision of 24 March 2004 (prohibition decision).

European Comm'n, Press Release No. IP/04/382, Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine (Mar. 24, 2004).

 

 

± EU web page

Commentary

± Key dates in EU antitrust action against Microsoft, BloombergBusinessweek.com (July 17, 2012).

± Kevin J. O'Brien, European Antitrust Deal With Microsoft Barely Affects Browser Market, NYTimes.com, Oct. 10, 2010.

Novell—Microsoft
—Utah complaint and MDL transfer to D. Maryland

Complaint, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:04-cv-01045-JFM (D. Utah filed Nov. 12, 2004)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 17, 2011)

MDL transfer and remand

Transfer Order (JPML Apr. 18, 2005) (transferring case to Maryland, MDL Dkt. No. 1332, for pretrial proceedings)

—Maryland consolidated pretrial proceedings

In re Microsoft Corp. Windows Operating System Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1332 (D. Md. filed ____)

MDL transfer

Transfer Order (JPML Apr. 18, 2005) (transferring D. Utah case to D. Maryland, MDL Dkt. No. 1332, for pretrial proceedings)

MDL docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 31, 2010)

District court (through motion to dismiss)

MDL docket sheet (downloaded July 17, 2012)

Opinion (Jan. 12, 2001) (ruling on Microsoft Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand)

Supplemental Opinion (Feb. 15, 2001)

Letter opinion (June 10. 2005)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss; Counts II, III, IV, and V are dismissed and Counts I and VI are not dismissed (June 10, 2005)

Memorandum (Aug. 19, 2005) (certifying interlocutory appeal)

Appeal (dismissal)

Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. 06-1134, 06-1238 (4th Cir. 2007) (reported as 505 F.3d 302) (affirming district court rulings)

 

District court (summary judgment)

Opinion, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., MDL No. 1332, Civ. No. JFM-05-1087 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2010) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment)

Order, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., MDL No. 1332, Civ. No. JFM-05-1087 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2010)

Notice of Appeal (Apr. 23, 2010)

Fourth Circuit appeal (summary judgment)

Brief of Appellant Novell, Inc. (Aug. 6, 2010)

Microsoft’s Motion to Strike Certain Documents from the Joint Appendix and Any References to Such Documents from Novell’s Brief (Aug. 11, 2010)

Novell’s Opposition to Microsoft’s Motion to Strike (Aug. 24, 2010)

Microsoft’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Strike Certain Documents from the Joint Appendix and Any References to Such Documents from Novell’s Brief (Aug. 27, 2010)

Order (Aug. 30, 2010) (granting motion to strike)

Conforming Brief of Appellant Novell, Inc. (Sept. 7, 2010)

Brief of Appellee Microsoft Corporation (Sept. 17, 2010)

[Reply brief] (Oct. 4, 2010)

± Oral argument (Mar. 22, 2011)

Opinion, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1482 (4th Cir. May 3, 2011) (unpublished) (reversing and remanding for jury trial)

—Utah remand

MDL remand

Conditional Remand Order (JPML June 30, 2011)

Joint Stipulation Regarding the Record on Remand (July 18, 2011)

Designation and Assignment of a Senior United States Judge for Service in Another Circuit (10th Cir. July 18, 2011) (assigning Judge Motz of the District Court for the District of Maryland, who presided over the MDL consolidated pretrial proceedings, to be the trial judge for the remanded action in the District of Utah pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d))

Novell's motion seeking collateral estoppel

Novell’s Renewed Motion Seeking Collateral Estoppel (Aug. 8, 2011)

Memorandum in Support of Novell's Renewed Motion Seeking Collateral Estoppel (Aug. 8, 2011)

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Exhibit 1: Letter to the parties from the Court (D. Md) re Novell's motion seeking collateral estoppel (Dec. 3, 2008)
Exhibit 2 (part a): Declaration of Roger G. Noll (May 1, 2009)
Exhibit 2 (part b): Declaration of Roger G. Noll (May 1, 2009)
Exhibit 3: Reply Report of Roger G. Noll (July 24, 2009)
Proposed Order

Microsoft’s Memorandum in Opposition to Novell’s Renewed Motion Seeking Collateral Estoppel (Aug. 22, 2011)

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C

Reply Memorandum in Support of Novell’s Renewed Motion Seeking Collateral Estoppel (Sept. 1, 2011)

Letter to the parties from the Court re tentative conclusions about collateral estoppel effect (Oct. 4, 2011)

Microsoft’s Memorandum Concerning the Court’s October 4, 2011 Collateral Estoppel Ruling (Oct. 5, 2011)

 

Juror questionnaire:

Novell’s Proposed Jury Questionnaire (Sept. 15, 2011)

Exhibit 1: Jury Questionnaire—no objections

Exhibit 2: Jury Questionnaire—additional questions

Microsoft’s Proposed Supplemental Juror Questionnaire (Sept. 15, 2011)

Exhibit A: Supplemental Juror Questionnaire (containing all questions proposed both by defendant and plaintiff)
Exhibit B: Supplemental Juror Questionnaire (Microsoft’s proposed Supplemental Juror Questionnaire, highlighting Microsoft’s questions to which Novell objects and underlining the four questions newly proposed by Novell to which Microsoft does not object)
Exhibit C: Juror questionnaire used at trial in the prosecution of Brian David Mitchell (charged with kidnapping Elizabeth Smart)
Exhibit D: Juror questionnaire used at trial in the prosecution of Tim DeChristopher

Juror Questionnaire (Oct. 5, 2011) (final presented to and filled out by 161 potential jurors)

Voir dire:

Microsoft’s Proposed Group Voir Dire (Sept. 15, 2011)

Exhibit A

Jury instructions:

Microsoft’s Memorandum Objecting to Novell’s Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions and in Support of Microsoft’s Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions (Sept. 12, 2011)

Letter to Judge Mortz from Novell re premature filing by Microsoft (Sept. 13, 2011)

Novell’s Memorandum in Support of Proposed Jury Instructions and in Opposition to Certain of Microsoft’s Proposed Jury Instructions (Sept. 23, 2011)

Memorandum in Support of Microsoft’s Proposed Jury Instructions and in Opposition to Novell’s Proposed Jury Instructions (redacted version filed Sept. 26, 2011)

Novell’s Memorandum Regarding Additional Authorities in Support of Proposed Jury Instructions and in Opposition to Certain of Microsoft’s Proposed Jury Instructions (Sept. 27, 2011)

Microsoft’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Proposed Jury Instructions and in Opposition to Novell’s Proposed Jury Instructions (Sept. 28, 2011)

Novell’s Modified Proposed Final Jury Instruction No. 17 (Oct. 6, 2011)

Memorandum to the parties from Judge Motz regarding preliminary jury instructions and middleware theory (Oct. 11, 2011)

Microsoft’s Memorandum Concerning the Court’s Tentative Views about Preliminary Jury Instructions (Oct. 13, 2011)

Novell's Memorandum Regarding the Court's Proposed Jury Instruction No. 1 (Oct. 13, 2011)

Trial:

Jurors selected (Oct. 17, 2011)
Trial begins (Oct. 18, 2011)
Plaintiff rests (Nov. 17, 2011)

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Nov. 17, 2011)

Microsoft’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Nov. 17, 2011)

Novell’s Opposition to Judgment as a Matter of Law (Nov. 18, 2011)

Trail resumes (Nov. 21, 2011)

Microsoft’s Revised Proposed Final Jury Instructions (Dec. 5, 2011)

Letter to Judge Mortz from Microsoft explaining revised proposed jury instructions (Dec. 5, 2011)

Microsoft’s Proposed Special Verdict Form (Dec. 5, 2011)

Novell's Memorandum Regarding Proposed Final Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms (Dec. 6, 2011)

Microsoft’s Memorandum in Response to Novell’s Proposed Final Jury Verdict Forms (Dec. 6, 2011)

Novell’s Objections and Suggestions Regarding the Court’s Tentative Jury Instructions and Verdict Form (Dec. 7, 2011)

Exhibit A: Redlined version of the Court’s tentative instructions indicating Novell’s proposed changes
Exhibit B: Novell's proposed verdict form

Letter to the Court from Microsoft regarding jury instructions (Dec. 7, 2011)

Exhibit A: Microsoft's Handwritten Markup of Proposed Jury Instructions

Exhibit B: Microsoft's Handwritten Markup of Proposed Jury Verdict Form

Letter to the Court from Novell re Response to Microsoft's letter of Dec. 7, 2011 regarding jury instructions (Dec. 8, 2011)

Letter to the Court from Microsoft regarding jury instructions (Dec. 8, 2011)

Letter to the Court from Novell re Response to Microsoft's letter of Dec. 8, 2011 regarding jury instructions (Dec. 9, 2011)

Letter to the Court from Microsoft regarding jury instructions (Dec. 9, 2011)

Letter to the Court from Novell re Response to Microsoft’s letter of Dec. 9, 2011 regarding jury instructions (Dec. 12, 2011)

Letter to the Court from Microsoft regarding jury instructions (Dec. 12, 2011)

Exhibit A: Microsoft's Handwritten Suggested Revisions to the Verdict Form

Exhibit B: Microsoft's Handwritten Suggested Revisions to the Jury Instructions

Letter to the Court from Novell re Response to Microsoft's letter of Dec. 12, 2011 regarding jury instructions (Dec. 12, 2011)

Exhibit A: Novell's Proposed Changes to Verdict Form

Exhibit B: Novell's Proposed Changes to Jury Instructions

Jury Trial Witness List (Dec. 13, 2011) (by the Court)

Evidence closes and closing argument made (Dec. 13, 2011)
Jury instructions given by the court (Dec. 14, 2011)

Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial completed on 12/16/2011. Jury deliberations continue at 8:00 a.m. Jury question received @ 9:15 a.m. At 4:22 p.m., the jury foreman sends the Court a note indicating the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Jurors are brought into the courtroom @ 4:30 p.m. and questioned by Judge Motz. The Court declares at mistrial @ 4:35 p.m. Jurors are excused and thanked for their service (Dec. 16, 2011).

Microsoft’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Jan. 13, 2012)

Microsoft’s Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Feb. 3, 2012)

Novell’s Opposition to Microsoft’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 9, 2012)

Microsoft’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 30, 2012)

Opinion, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., MDL No. 1332, Civ. No. JFM-05-1087 (D. Md. July 16, 2012)

Order, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., MDL No. 1332, Civ. No. JFM-05-1087 (D. Md. July 16, 2012) (granting Microsoft's Rule 50(b) motion and entering judgment for Microsoft)

 

Appeal

Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-4143 (10th Cir. Sept. 23, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 8, 2013)

Appellant’s Opening Brief (Nov. 21, 2012)

Brief of Defendant-Appellee Microsoft Corporation (Jan. 23, 2013)

Appellant’s Reply Brief (Feb. 22, 2013)

Opinion (Sept. 23, 2013) (affirming judgment below)

Judgment (Sept. 123, 2013)

 

Commentary:

± Groklaw.com, Novell v. MS Antitrust Timeline

± Groklaw.com, Closing Arguments in the Novell v. Microsoft's Antitrust Trial (Dec. 14, 2011)

± Joel Rosenblatt & Shelley Osterloh, Novell-Microsoft Trial Over WordPerfect Ends as Jurors Deadlock, Bloomberg BusinessWeek.com, Dec. 17, 2011 (reporting taht the vote was 11-1 against Microsoft)

± Tom Harvey, Judge declares hung jury in Novell-Microsoft trial, Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 16

± Dennis Romboy, Lone holdout deadlocks jury in 2-month Novell-Microsoft trial, Deseret News.com, Dec. 16, 2011.

AMD-Intel

Complaint, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00441-JJF (D. Del. filed (case terminated through settlement Dec. 1, 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 26, 2011)

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas (July 1, 2005)

Proposed Order (so ordered July 1, 2005)

Answer (Sept. 1, 2005)

Transfer Order (J.P.M.L. Nov. 8, 2005) (filed Nov. 9, 2005)

Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding Expert Discovery (Apr. 27, 2006) (so ordered May 1, 2006)

Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (Dec. 1, 2009)

Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement Between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and Intel Corporation (signed Nov. 11, 2009)

Intel-AMD insurance

Intel's claim for insurance coverage

First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract and Bad Faith, Intel Corp. v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., No. 5:09-cv-00299 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 28, 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 30, 2010)

Order (1) Denying Motion to Dismiss or Stay and (2) Granting Motion to Intervene (June 11, 2009)

Defendant American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the First Amended Complaint (June 25, 2009)

Intel—FTC

Administrative Complaint, In re Intel Corp., Dkt. No. 9341 (FTC filed Dec. 16, 2009) (FTC news release)

Statement of Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch
Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rosch

± Intel Conference Call Regarding U.S. FTC Suit (Doug Melamed, Intel senior president and general counsel) (Dec. 16, 2009)

Motion of Intel Corporation For Disqualification of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch [Redacted Public Version] (Dec. 15, 2009)

Opinion and Order of the Commission Denying Motion For Disqualification [Redacted Public Version] (Jan. 19, 2010) (including Attachment A: Statement of Commissioner Rosch on Respondent's Motion for Disqualification [Redacted Public Version])

Answer of Respondent Intel Corporation (Public) (Dec. 31, 2009)

Administrative Law Judge’s Protective Order Governing Discovery Material (Dec. 16, 2009)

Administrative Law Judge’s Scheduling Order (Jan. 14, 2010)

Stipulation Between Intel and Complaint Counsel Regarding Respondent's Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information in Response to Complaint Counsel's First Set of Requests for Production (Jan. 29, 2010) (public version)

Complaint Counsel's First Set of Requests for Admission (1-23) (Feb. 17, 2010) (public version)

Respondent's Answers and Objections to Complaint Counsel's First Set of Requests for Admission (Mar. 1, 2010) (public version)

Motion of Intel Corporation for Protective Order Pursuant to Rules 3.33(b) and 3.31(d) - Public (Mar. 17, 2010) (seeking limitations to FTC's "Rule 30(b)(6)" deposition notice)

Complaint Counsel's Opposition to Respondent's Motion For a Protective Order (Mar. 24, 2010)

Order (Mar. 26, 2010)

 

Complaint Counsel's Motion to Admit European Commission Decision (Mar. 17, 2010)

Memorandum in Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion to Admit European Commission Decision (Apr. 12, 2010)

Complaint Counsel's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Admit EC Decision (Apr. 26, 2010)

Complaint Counsel's Answers and Objections to Respondent's First Set of Requests for Admission (May 5, 2010)

Respondent Intel Corporation's Second Set of Requests for Admission Issued to Complainant Federal Trade Commission (10-100) (June 1, 2010)

Respondent's Answers and Objections to Complaint Counsel's Second Set of Requests for Admission (June 1, 2010)

Joint Motion to Withdraw Matter from Adjudication [Redacted Public Version] (June 21, 2010)

Order Withdrawing Matter From Adjudication For The Purpose Of Considering A Proposed Consent Agreement (June 21, 2010)

Agreement Containing Consent Order (Aug. 4, 2010)

Decision and Order (Aug. 4, 2010)

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment (Aug. 4, 2010)

News Release (Aug. 4, 2010)

Federal Register notice (Aug. 10, 2010)

± Public comments

Final Decision and Order (Nov. 2, 2010) (news release)

± Jeffrey Burt, FTC Modifies Intel Antitrust Settlement, eWeek.com, Nov. 3, 2010

± Shane McGlaun, FTC Modifies Antitrust Settlement with Intel to Allow "Oak Trail" to Ship, DailyTech.com, Nov. 4, 2010

± Don Clark & Brent Kendall, Intel Settles Antitrust Case, WSJ.com | Tech, Aug. 5, 2010

 

± FTC web page
± Intel Corp., Competition in the Innovation Economy web page

Commentary

± Joshua S. Gans, Intel and Blocking Practices (2010), in The Antitrust Revolution 413 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 6th ed. 2014).

± Joshua D. Wright, Does Antitrust Enforcement In High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel (Jan. 2011).

± J. Thomas Rosch, Comm'r, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Intel, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook: Observations on Antitrust and the High-Tech Sector, Remarks Before the ABA Antitrust Section Fall Forum, Washington, D.C. (Nov. 18, 2010).

± Joshua D. Wright, An Antitrust Analysis of the Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint Against Intel (George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 10-27, June 14, 2010).

± Daniel A. Crane, Predation Analysis and the FTC's Case Against Intel (University of Michigan Law & Economics Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 10-014, May 25, 2010).

± Keith N. Hylton, Intel and the Death of U.S. Antitrust Law (Boston U. School of Law Working Paper No. 10-06, Mar. 15, 2010), final version at 2 CPI Antitrust J. __ ( Feb. 2010).

± Robert H. Lande, FTC v. Intel: Applying the 'Consumer Choice' Framework to 'Pure' Section 5 Allegations, 2 CPI Antitrust J. 1 ( Feb. 2010).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, The FTC's Anticompetitive Pricing Case Against Intel (Feb. 1, 2010).

± Daniel A. Crane, Reflections on Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FTC’s Case against Intel (U of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper No. 10-001, Jan. 19, 2010).

± Antitrust & Competition Law Blog, FTC Act Section 5 Blog Symposium on Intel Case (Jan. 10, 2010).

± Robert D. Willig, Jonathan M. Orszag & Gilad Levin, An Economic Perspective on the Antitrust Case against Intel, Report Commissioned by the Computer & Communications Industry Ass'n (Oct. 2009).

± PC World, Intel and Antitrust: A Brief History, Feb. 14, 2008.

Intel—NY

Complaint, New York v. Intel, Civ. A. No. 09-827 (LPS) (D. Del. filed Nov. 4, 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 27, 2011)

Answer (Jan. 12, 2010)

Intel Corporation's Motion under Rule 12(c) for Dismissal with Respect to New York's Donnelly Act Damages Claim on Behalf of Consumers (May 27, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion under Rule 12(c) for Dismissal with Respect to New York's Donnelly Act Damages Claim on Behalf of Consumers (May 27, 2011)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion under Rule 12(c) for Dismissal with Respect to New York’s Donnelly Act Damages Claim on Behalf of Consumers (Aug. 3, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion under Rule 12(c) for Dismissal with Respect to New York’s Donnelly Act Damages Claim on Behalf of Consumers (Aug. 17, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion (Dec. 7, 2011) (granting motion and dismissing claims)

Order (Dec. 7, 2011)

Motion under Rule 17(a), Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 12(e) for Dismissal with Respect to New York's Claims on Behalf of Non-State Public Entities (May 27, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion under Rule 17(a), Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 12(e) for Dismissal with Respect to New York's Claims on Behalf of Non-State Public Entities (June 3, 2011) (public version)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion under Rule 12(c) for Dismissal with Respect to New York’s Donnelly Act Damages Claim on Behalf of Non-State Public Entities (Aug. 3, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion under Rule 17(a), Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 12(e) for Dismissal with Respect to New York's Claims on Behalf of Non-State Public Entities (Aug. 17, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion (Dec. 7, 2011) (granting motion)

Order (Dec. 7, 2011)

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Grounds (May 27, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Grounds (June 3, 2011) (redacted)

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Grounds (Aug. 3, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion (Dec. 7, 2011) (granting partial summary judgment and applying Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations and not New York’s longer period)

Order (Dec. 7, 2011)

Motion for Summary Judgment Intel Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Lawfulness of its Discounting Practices (Oct. 14, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Lawfulness of its Discounting Practices (Oct. 27, 2011) (redacted)

New York's Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (D.I. 231 & 234) (Nov. 23, 2011) (public version)

Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Anticompetitive Exclusion, Antitrust Injury and Measurable Damages (Oct. 14, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Anticompetitive Exclusion, Antitrust Injury and Measurable Damages (Oct. 27, 2011) (redacted)

New York’s Combined Opposition to Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment (D.I. 231 & 234) (Nov. 23, 2011) (public version)

Intel Corporation's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Frederick Warren-Boulton (Oct. 14, 2011)

Intel Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Frederick Warren-Boulton (Oct. 27, 2011) (redacted)

New York's Memorandum in Opposition to Intel's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Frederick Warren-Boulton (Nov. 23, 2011) (public version)

Reply Brief in Support Intel Corporation's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Frederick Warren-Boulton (Dec. 15, 2011) (public version)

Supplemental Motion or Summary Judgment (Dec. 22, 2011)

 

 

Letter to Hon. Leonard Stark from Plaintiff State of NY regarding Proposal on Moving the Case Forward (Dec. 22, 2011) (proposing that New York dismiss its federal law claims, thereby divesting the court of original jurisdiction, and that the court should dismiss the state law claims without prejudice so that New York can pursue these claims in state court)

Order Cancelling Trial, Vacating Scheduling Order, and Staying Case (Dec. 23, 2011)

Commentary

± John Ribeiro, Intel Antitrust Case May Be Headed to New York Court, PCWorld.com (December 27, 2011).

Intel—EU

Case No. COMP/C-3 /37.990, Intel, Commission decision of May 13, 2009 (provisional non-confidential version released Sept. 21, 2009). DO NOT download this without looking at it first—the decision is 518 pages long! (The unredacted decision is 542 pages.)

EC web site

Press release IP/09/745, European Comm'n, Antitrust: Commission imposes fine of €1.06 on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease illegal practices (May 13, 2009)
Press memorandum MEMO/09/235, European Comm'n, Antitrust: Commission imposes fine of 1.06 billion euros on Intel for abuse of dominant position; orders Intel to cease illegal practices - questions and answers (May 13, 2009)

European Comm'n, Summary of Commission Decision
Press memorandum MEMO/09/400, European Comm'n, Antitrust: Commission publishes decision concerning Intel's abuse of dominant position (Sept. 21, 2009)

± Brice Allibert, Gabor Bartha, Barbara Bösze, Corneliu Hödlmayr, Damian Kaminski & Marieke Scholz, Commission Finds Abuse of Dominance in the Intel Case, Competition Policy Newsletter 2009-3.

± Damien Geradin, The Decision of the Commission of 13 May 2009 in the Intel Case: Where is the Foreclosure and Consumer Harm? (Oct. 16, 2009)

± Robert H. Lande, The Price of Abuse: Intel and the European Commission Decision, GCP, June 2009.

United Regional Health Care System

Complaint, United States v. United Regional Health Care System, No. 7:11-cv-00030-O (N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 25, 2011) (press release)

[Proposed] Final Judgment (Feb. 25, 2011) (stipulation)

Competitive Impact Statement (Feb. 25, 2011)

± DOJ web page

iPod litigation
(private 2005)

Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Common Law of Monopolization, In re Apple iPpod ITunes Anti-Trust Litig., No. 4:05-cv-00037-YGR (N.D.. Cal. Apr. 19, 2007) (original complaint filed Jan. 3, 2005)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 14, 2014)

Order Consolidating Related Cases; Appointing Co-Lead Counsel (Mar. 21, 2007)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification as to Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven Only and Appointing Class Counsel; Sua Sponte Order Reconsidering Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One and Requiring Further Briefing (Dec. 22, 2008) (reported at 2008 WL 5574487)

Order Vacating Case Management Conference; Clarifying and Correcting Class Certification Order; Setting Briefing Schedule (Jan. 15, 2009) (reported at 2009 WL 249234)

Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Ordering Supplemental Briefing (May 15, 2009) (dismissing per se tying as a permissible basis for Plaintiffs’ Section 1 claims)

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the First Cause of Action for Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Fifth Cause of Action for Violations of the Cartwright Act (Oct. 30, 2009)

Order Decertifying Classes Without Prejudice to Being Renewed; Inviting Further Motions (Dec. 12, 2009)

Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California Common Law of Monopolization, In re Apple iPpod ITunes Anti-Trust Litig., No. 4:05-cv-00037-YGR (N.D.. Cal. Jan. 26, 2010) (original complaint filed Jan. 3, 2005)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Premature Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint (June 29, 2010) (reported as 2010 WL 2629907)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as Premature Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (May 19, 2011) (reported as 796 F. Supp. 2d 1137)

 

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roger G. Noll (Dec. 21, 2013)

 

 

Rambus
(FTC 2002)

FTC

Complaint, In re Rambus Inc., No. 9302 (F.T.C. filed June 18, 2002) (FTC news release issued June 19, 2002)

Initial Decision (Feb. 24, 2004) (Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen J. McGuire) (dismissing complinat) (FTC press release issued Feb. 24, 2004)

Order of the Administrative Law Judge Dismissing the Complaint (Feb. 17, 2004)

Opinion of the Commission (Aug. 2, 2006) (FTC news release issued Aug. 2, 2006)

Order Reversing and Vacating Initial Decision and Accompanying Order, Scheduling Supplemental Briefing on Issues of Remedy, and Denying Complaint Counsel's Motion for Sanctions (Aug. 2, 2006)

Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Jon Leibowitz (Aug. 2, 2006)

Opinion of the Commission on Remedy (Feb. 5, 2007) (FTC press release issued Feb. 5, 2007)

Final Order (Feb. 5, 2007)

Remedy Statement of Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Feb. 5, 2007)

Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part (Feb. 5, 2007)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondent’s Motion for Stay of Final Order Pending Appeal (Mar. 16, 2007)

D.C. Circuit

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 16, 2014)

Final Brief for Petitioner Rambus Inc. (Jan. 11, 2008)

Final Brief for Respondent Federal Trade Commission (Jan. 11, 2008)

Final Reply Brief for Petitioner Rambus Inc. (Jan. 11, 2008)

Rambus Inc. v. FTC, No. 07-1086 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 22, 2008) (reported at 522 F.3d 456) (setting aside FTC order)

Petition of Respondent Federal Trade Commission for Rehearing en banc (June 6, 2008)

 

FTC

Order Authorizing Respondent to Receive Excess Consideration Held Pursuant to Contingent Contractual Obligations (Oct. 16, 2008)

Order Returning Matter to Adjudication and Dismissing Complaint (May 12, 2009) (FTC news release issued May 14, 2009)

± FTC web page

 

15. Merger risk

17. Price predation