Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 A The Harvard Law Review Argued in The New
1 A The Harvard Law Review Argued in The New
1. a. The Harvard Law Review argued, “In the New Economy (information technology)... there
will inevitably be an increasing number of markets with only a few dominant players.”9 Why
would that be so?
b. Are we mistaken in pursuing Microsoft and other “new economy” giants with “old economy”
antitrust principles? Explain.
b. Even if monopolies do not discourage invention, we have firm economic grounds for
opposing monopolies. Explain.
4. Real estate developer Ernest Coleman built an apartment complex in Stilwell, Oklahoma
(population 2,700), and ordered electric service from an out-of-town utility, Ozark Electric.
Stilwell officials said they would deny him city water and sewer service if he did not buy his
electricity from the city-owned utility service. Because he could not buy water or sewer service
elsewhere, Coleman decided to switch to Stilwell’s utility. In 1996, the federal Justice
Department sued Stilwell. Explain the federal government’s complaint and decide the case.
5. Historically, perhaps the most important interpretation of the Sherman Act’s proscription of
monopolization was Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in the Alcoa case. After finding that Alcoa
controlled 90 percent of the aluminum ingot market, Hand had to determine whether Alcoa
possessed a general intent to monopolize. Hand concluded that Alcoa’s market dominance
could have resulted only from a “persistent determination” to maintain control: It was not
inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingots and be prepared to
supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others
entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more
effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to
face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization.10 Comment
on Judge Hand’s remarks.
b. Explain the defendants’s argument that they could not successfully charge “excessive”
prices for the use of the CRSs.
ANSWER
https://solvedquest.com/1-a-the-harvard-law-review-argued-in-the-new/