Exam 49: Antitrust: the Sherman Act

The Sherman Act states that corporations convicted of violating it may be fined as much as:

Which of the following statements about criminal prosecutions pursuant to the Sherman Act is false?

According to the Chicago School viewpoint,the traditional antitrust focus on the structure of industry has improperly emphasized protecting ________ instead of protecting ________.

Resale price maintenance is also known as:

When two or more persons or business entities join for the purpose of restraining trade,a(n)________ occurs.

Supreme Court decisions in recent years indicate that some group boycotts receive per se treatment,whereas other group boycotts receive rule of reason treatment.

Rockchalk Paving Co. ,a Kansas firm,paves public streets and highways in Kansas and the surrounding states of Nebraska,Colorado,Oklahoma,and Missouri.Wildcat Pavers,Inc. ,a paving contractor that competes with Rockchalk in Kansas,Oklahoma,and Missouri,filed suit against Rockchalk and Jayhawk Corp. ,another paving contractor.Wildcat alleges that Rockchalk owns 65 percent of the outstanding stock of Jayhawk and that the defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in collusive bid-rigging practices.The defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.Should their motion be granted? Explain your reasoning.

Which of the following has been recognized by the courts as a possible justification for tying agreements?

Which of the following outlaws monopolization,attempted monopolization,and agreements in restraint of trade?

Ojay Corp. ,A-C,Inc. ,and Kato Co.are competitors in the production and sale of knives.A year ago,the three firms agreed to share pricing information with each other on a periodic basis.As a result of this agreed sharing of information,the three companies regularly charge the same prices,including a minimum price that none of the three goes below and a maximum price that none of the three goes above.A fourth producer of knives,Bronco Co. ,is the plaintiff in a Sherman Act Section 1 lawsuit against Ojay,A-C,and Kato.Bronco claims that the foregoing facts constituted price-fixing and that Bronco suffered direct antitrust injury as a result.Assuming that Bronco is a proper plaintiff,which of the following is an accurate analysis under current antitrust law?

Today's market structure in many important industries is ________,meaning that a few dominant firms account for the bulk of production.

Which of the following antitrust activities can be challenged only under state law?

Acme Corp.has captured 90 percent of the national market for commodity "X." Acme is most likely to be liable for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,if "X" is:

As demonstrated in Suture Express Inc.v.Owens & Minor Distribution,Inc. ,the case in the text,one of the elements that must be demonstrated before a challenged tying agreement will be held to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act is that:

Traditional antitrust thinkers argue that:

In American Needle,Inc.v.National Football League,the case in the text,the U.S.Supreme Court held that:

LMNOP Corp.has been convicted under the Sherman Act for two distinct and separate violations.LMNOP may be fined as much as ________ for these two violations.

United States-based firms that engage in international business activities must remember that they could be subject to antitrust complaints in other nations.

Chicago School theorists argue that antitrust policy's primary thrust should feature:

BG Corp. ,a manufacturer of men's polyester leisure suits and other men's clothing items,held approximately a 70 percent share of the leisure suit market in the United States.(Although most males have publicly spurned this 1970s-era item,BG knows quite well that millions of men still swear by them-albeit quietly. )BG began refusing to sell wholesalers and retailers its leisure suits unless they also purchased BG's polyester capes.As a result,intermediate sellers that wished to buy BG leisure suits for resale effectively had to agree to purchase the capes as well.BG had begun selling the capes two years earlier,but the product was a commercial flop.Only one other company manufactured capes for wearing by men,and that company was about to cease doing so because,as it and BG had discovered,there was virtually no demand among men for capes.An appropriate plaintiff has now sued BG under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,on the theory that BG was a party to impermissible tying agreements.What treatment will the court give the agreements? Will BG be held liable? Why or why not?