Comment two my two classmates topic

Classmate 1

) Do you think the court got it right here?

I feel that the court decided correctly because it must abide by the law and cannot go beyond its scope. Since the purchases were made by Motorola's foreign subsidiaries, which are legally separate entities and not simply branches of Motorola abroad, the Sherman Act did not apply. The harm occurred outside the U.S., and although the increased prices may have affected phones sold in the U.S., the impact was not considered direct or reasonably foreseeable on U.S. commerce. If the court had ruled in Motorola's favor, it would have created a precedent or stare decisis for similar disputes in the future and could have caused conflicts with the laws of the country

2) Do you agree with the court's policy arguments on pgs. 7-9 about the extraterritorial application of antitrust law?

Yes, I agree with the court. If US law were applied to every business deal that happens overseas, it would be like the US trying to control how other countries run their markets. That would cause conflicts because each country has its own rules and laws about trade. The court wanted to make sure US law only applies when there

Classmate 2

1)

Yes, I agree with the court's decision. I do not believe this case violates the Sherman Act simply because the LCD panels were later incorporated into Motorola products sold in the United States. The transactions that matter, purchasing the panels, took place overseas where laws and regulations differ from those in the United States. If Motorola was concerned about antitrust protections, it should have chosen to source components from countries with similar antitrust laws rather than outsourcing primarily for lower costs. Because the forty two percent of panels were bought and paid for by Motorola's foreign subsidiaries, they have no grounds under United States antitrust law.

As the Seventh Circuit explained, "U.S. antitrust laws are not to be used for injury to foreign customers" (Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 14-8003, Seventh Circuit 2014, page 6). This statement emphasizes that the real injury, if any, was to the subsidiaries operating abroad, not to Motorola in the United States. The court's reasoning protects international business relationships and prevents the United States from acting as a global enforcer, a result Congress sought to avoid when it passed the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. Overall, the decision reinforces that companies must accept the legal risks of the markets in which they choose to operate.

2)

I agree with the court's reasoning that U.S. antitrust law should not be applied too broadly beyond the nation's borders. Allowing the Sherman Act to reach foreign transactions would risk conflicts with other countries' legal systems and undermine their authority to manage their own markets. The court warned that this kind of reach "creates a serious risk of interference with a foreign nation's ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs" (Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 14-8003, Seventh Circuit 2014, pages 7-8), highlighting the need to keep U.S. antitrust enforcement focused on commerce that is truly domestic.