Antitrust Law Blog

Federal District Court in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss conspiracy and monopolization claims against Comcast arising out of transactions in which Comcast had both purchased and sold geographically separate local cable television systems to competitors in exchange for other systems. Glaberson, et al. v. Comcast, et al., Civil Action No. 03-6604 (E.D. Pa. August 31, 2006). The rapidly consolidating cable television industry frequently uses transactions in which large cable companies "swap" cable systems in different geographic areas with the goal of assembling larger contiguous areas in which each cable company provides services. The economic motivation is that assembling larger contiguous areas makes administering such contiguous cable systems cheaper and more efficient. Such swaps are also done on the basis of swapping subscribers, rather than entire cable systems, again in an effort to increase the effective economic size of contiguous service areas.

In a recent opinion, the District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed AMD's antitrust claims against Intel that arose out of Intel's alleged foreign-related conduct that affected AMD's foreign sales. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (AMD), Civ. Action No. 05-441-JJF, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 2742297 (D. Del. Sept. 26, 2006). In that case, AMD had alleged that Intel willfully maintained a monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market, which AMD alleged to constitute a world-wide market, by engaging in such exclusionary conduct as, among other things, "forcing major customers into exclusive or non-exclusive deals, conditioning rebates and other monetary incentives on customers' agreement to limit or forego purchases from AMD, forcing PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches and promotions and threatening retaliation against customers introducing AMD computer platforms." Id. at *1. 

District Court Schedules Tunney Act Hearing

• On November 30, 2006 at 2pm, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a hearing on the government's Motion for Entry of Final Judgments in deciding whether to approve the merger of AT&T and SBC and the merger of MCI and Verizon. Judge Sullivan surprised many observers by demanding that the Department of Justice and the merging parties submit much of the evidence that the Antitrust Division had reviewed during the second request it had issued during both mergers.