Exam 49: Antitrust: the Sherman Act

All the gas stations in Smalltown agree to charge the same price for gas.The owners of the various companies get together every Friday in a coffee shop to decide what the price will be next week.This is:

To be liable for monopolization,a defendant must:

Competitors making an agreement to split up a geographical area and not to directly compete against each other is per se illegal.

The relevant product market is composed of those products meeting the functional interchangeability test.

After Khan (State Oil Co.v.Khan (1997))and Leegin (Leegin Creative Leather Products v.PSKS,Inc.(2007)),all forms of vertical price-fixing now receive _____ analysis.

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

Once firms have attained monopoly power,only then can they be held for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

As per the Colgate doctrine,a manufacturer cannot unilaterally refuse to deal with those who fail to follow the manufacturer's suggested resale prices.

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. ,the plaintiff in a Sherman Act Section 1 lawsuit against Ojay,A-C,and Kato.Bronco claims in the lawsuit 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?

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.