Agreements That Are Deemed Per Se Violations Of Section 1

Competitor`s purchases; Obtaining all publicly available price data; Track price trends and patterns based on time, location and location; Learn from publicly or customerly available sources about industry-wide pricing policies, discounts and programs. As noted above, the mere exchange of price information is not an offence to Section 1 per se. United States v. Citizens – Southern National Bank, 422 U.S. 86, 113, 114 (1975); United States v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969); Canterbury Liquors – Pantry v. Sullivan, 16 F. Supp.

2d 41 (D. Mass. 1998). However, a price exchange may continue to violate Section 1 if the effect or effect of the price exchange is to increase or stabilize prices. Container Corp., 393 U.S. to 336-38. Therefore, the obvious concern about cartels and abuse of dominance is that collecting price information from a competitor can also serve as a precursor or complement to a price agreement between competitors. Compare United States v.

United State Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978), and United States v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969), with Cement Manufacturer Protectives Association v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (1925). See also Todd v. Exxon Corporation, 275 F.3d 191, 1999 (The exchange of information facilitates practice that can help support conclusions about horizontal pricing agreements). Self-interest is served only by similar behaviour. See z.B.

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 226-28 (1939). Artificial product standardization. See C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489, 497 (9 Cir.), cert. But see DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists, 2 F.

Supp. 2d 226, 229 – 230 (D.R.I. 1998) aff`d 170 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 1999) (parallel artificial standardization of reactive water was not sufficient to prove a conspiracy in which the adoption of standards was an increase in the cost to alleged conspirators). Increased prices during the surplus. See American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S.781, 805 (1946). The reasons given for this action.

See z.B. Fragle – Sons Beverage Co. v. Dill, 760 F.2d 469, 474 (1985). But see Moffat v. Lane Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 43, 49 (D.

Mass. 1984) referring to Bruce Drug, Inc. v. Hollister, Inc., 688 F.2d 853, 857 (1st Cir 1982) (Fact that the business ground against the applicant has arrived, without further justifying the assertion that the conduct was a conspiracy).