1. At one point, Syufy held 100 percent of the first-run market. Why was Syufy not a monopolist?
2. Is this decision rooted more in structural (market share) or conduct (e.g., predatory pricing) considerations? Explain.
3. What role did the issue of Syufy’s intent to monopolize play in this case? Explain.
4. Assume we have historical data showing that when the price of rolled steel has increased, the sales volume of rolled aluminum has remained constant. What, if anything, does that fact tell us about the product market for rolled steel?
5. Define the product market for championship boxing matches.
6. Adidas provides cash, sporting goods, and the like to universities in exchange for various promotional rights, including the team’s or coach’s agreement to wear Adidas clothing in athletic activities. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules limit the amount of advertising that may appear on a uniform being used in competition. Adidas sued the NCAA claiming, among other things, that the advertising restrictions constitute an attempted monopoly by the NCAA. In pursuing its monopoly claim, Adidas defined the relevant market as “the market for the sale of NCAA Promotional Rights.” The NCAA responded by saying that a market consisting solely of the sale of promotional rights by NCAA member institutions (colleges and universities) on athletic apparel used in intercollegiate activity is not a plausible relevant market.
a. Define the relevant product market from the NCAA point of view.
b. How would the court decide where the product market actually lies?
The crux of the Justice Department’s case is that Syufy, top gun in the Las Vegas movie market, had the power to push around Hollywood’s biggest players, dictating to them what prices they could charge for their movies. The district court found otherwise. This finding too has substantial support in the record

  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question