On June 30, 2015, in United States v. Apple, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Apple’s agreements with five publishing companies violated the Sherman Act. With Apple as a retailer and the publishers as manufacturers, the agreements between the two groups were vertical. This classification is significant because in 2007 in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., the Supreme Court held that all vertical agreements should be analyzed under the rule of reason. Rather than looking at the structure of the agreements, however, the Second Circuit focused on the type of market restraint that the agreements imposed. Because the vertical agreements facilitated a horizontal conspiracy to raise and set ebook prices...
Nineteen seventy-seven was a paradigm-shifting year in antitrust law. Decisions by the Supreme Court...
A federal judge recently held that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring with leading publisher...
The application of section 1 of the Sherman Act to resale restrictions imposed by a supplier of good...
On June 30, 2015, in United States v. Apple, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ...
In 2012 the Department of Justice brought suit against Apple and five major US publishing houses for...
Antitrust and “Big Tech” firms are under renewed scrutiny, in part due to the dispute between Epic G...
The rapid development of the digital marketplace led the United States Supreme Court to revisit the ...
When market intermediaries unlawfully acquire market power, vertically related market participants m...
Amazon’s main rival, Apple, went to great lengths and took major risks to enter the e-book market. W...
Section I of the Sherman Act condemns and declares illegal “every restraint, combination in form of ...
In American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, the Seventh Circuit was presented with the ques...
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed a prior holding and ruled that nonprice restrictions...
In Apple v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers who claim to have overpaid for apps s...
Following an epic battle in the marketplace between Apple and major book publishers, on one side, an...
In Apple v. Pepper the Supreme Court held that consumers who allegedly paid too much for apps sold o...
Nineteen seventy-seven was a paradigm-shifting year in antitrust law. Decisions by the Supreme Court...
A federal judge recently held that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring with leading publisher...
The application of section 1 of the Sherman Act to resale restrictions imposed by a supplier of good...
On June 30, 2015, in United States v. Apple, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ...
In 2012 the Department of Justice brought suit against Apple and five major US publishing houses for...
Antitrust and “Big Tech” firms are under renewed scrutiny, in part due to the dispute between Epic G...
The rapid development of the digital marketplace led the United States Supreme Court to revisit the ...
When market intermediaries unlawfully acquire market power, vertically related market participants m...
Amazon’s main rival, Apple, went to great lengths and took major risks to enter the e-book market. W...
Section I of the Sherman Act condemns and declares illegal “every restraint, combination in form of ...
In American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, the Seventh Circuit was presented with the ques...
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed a prior holding and ruled that nonprice restrictions...
In Apple v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers who claim to have overpaid for apps s...
Following an epic battle in the marketplace between Apple and major book publishers, on one side, an...
In Apple v. Pepper the Supreme Court held that consumers who allegedly paid too much for apps sold o...
Nineteen seventy-seven was a paradigm-shifting year in antitrust law. Decisions by the Supreme Court...
A federal judge recently held that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring with leading publisher...
The application of section 1 of the Sherman Act to resale restrictions imposed by a supplier of good...