LAW 642 Lecture Notes - Lecture 58: Snubber, Exclusive Dealing, Production Planning
30 May 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Indeed it was grinell that pursued the agreement, suggesting that the consumer was not hurt in that it got exactly what it wanted. Surely the consumer should not be handicapped by the law in pursuing contracts in its interest. Very important: importantly, there may not even be a prima facie case because it doesn"t increase pacific"s market power because pacific was already a monopolist, but pacific"s sudden willingness to lower its price after. Exclusive dealing agreements with internet access providers to be default browser and in some cases, that iaps would not allow greater than 15% of their customers to use competing browsers. Court notes that rule of thumb for cognizable foreclosure effects ( significant foreclosure) is 40-50% Court goes on to conclude microsoft violated section 2. 75-85% monopolist in artificial teeth market required exclusive dealing ks with all new retailers (old retailers grandfathered in) on the alleged need to most efficiently market product.
