1. a. Explain why the court concluded that “destination skiers at Deer Valley” or at “Deer Valley’s mid-mountain village” constitute a market separate from ski rental outlets in nearby Park City.
b. How did the Court define the “true product” market?
2. a. The plaintiff failed to establish the two core elements of its proof as required by the court. Explain those elements and describe why the court ruled against the plaintiff.
b. How will consumers be protected from monopoly behavior by the defendant Deer Valley?
3. Why should Deer Valley be allowed to restrict output and raise prices by denying the plaintiff the continuing opportunity to rent skis at Deer Valley?
4. The U.S. government sued DuPont, claiming monopolization of the cellophane market. DuPont produced almost 75 percent of the cellophane sold in the United States. Cellophane constituted less than 20 percent of the “flexible packaging materials” market. The lower court found “great sensitivity of customers in the flexible packaging markets to price or quality changes.”
a. What is the relevant product market?
b. Who wins the case? Explain.
We agree with the defendant that the creator of a resort has no obligation under the antitrust laws to allow competitive suppliers of ancillary services on its property. A theme park, for example, does not have to permit third parties to open restaurants, hotels, gift shops, or other facilities within the park; it can reserve to itself the right to conduct such businesses and receive revenues from them. Accordingly, if it sells land within the resort to third parties, the antitrust laws do not bar the re-sort owner from imposing a covenant against use of the property for competitive businesses. This is so even if food, rooms, gifts, or other ancillary goods and services would be cheaper and more plentiful if the resort owner allowed competition in these businesses.