You work in sales and are friendly with a sales representa- tive who works for o

Question

You work in sales and are friendly with a sales representa- tive who works for one of your employer's competitors. Your children are in the same class at school, so you see each other frequently. While watching a Saturday soccer game, you talk about a new sales promotion that your company plans to offer. Is it ethical to have such a conver- sation? Is it legal? Should it matter whether the promotion is the subject of an advertisement in the trade magazines? 16.1 (NFL) had monopolized the market for their likenesses in violation of the Sherman Act. The players argued that because they were not allowed the rights to game footage and images from the games in which they had played, the NFL had committed an antitrust violation. The players alleged that they received little compensation from game footage in which they appeared, while the NFL reaped large sums. The game footage at issue was owned either by the NFL alone or by the NFL and a particular team. In other words, the individual teams did not exclusively own the footage of their own players. Thus, the teams had to "cooperate to produce and sell" the footage because "no one entity can do it alone." The district court held that the NFL and its teams could "conspire to mar individually owned property, but not property the teams and the NFL can only collectively own." The court there- fore found no illegal concerted action under the Sherman Act. Should the retired players be permitted to sell their likenesses in the footage? [Washington s. National Foorball League, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2012)4 16.2 The two largest newspapers in Chicago are the Chicago Tribune and the San Times, and the two largest supple- mental news providers are the New York Times News Service and the Los Angeles Times/Washington News Service. In addition to printing the work of its own staff, the Tribune has a contract with the New York Times News Service pursuant to which the Service provides news and other material of interest to the Tribune on an exclusive basis in the Chicago area. The Sun Times has ket each [team's similar exclusive arrangement with the Los Angeles Times/Washington News Service. As a result of these exclusive contracts, Chicago's third largest newspaper the Daily Herald, could not obtain newsfeed from either 16.4 Gerber, Heinz, and Beech-Nut, manufacturers of baby service. It was also unable to obtain newsfeed from the third most popular provider because that provider was owned by the Tribune, which refused to license its stories to a competitor in its home market. The Daily Herald challenged this pattern of exclusive distributorships as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, claiming that it effectively denied the Herald the opportunity to subscribe food, account for essentially the entire market in the United States. A number of retail stores filed an antitrust class action against the companies alleging that they had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to fix prices. The dass presented evidence that sales representatives employed by the three companies exchanged price information about their prod- ucts, including, on occasion, sending each other advance notice of price increases. The class of store owners also introduced evidence of e-mails indicating that the com- panies were aware of anticipated price increases before they were announced in the market. One to the best supplemental news services. Does a pattern of exclusive distributorships in a market violate the Sherman Act? In what way could the news rvices' practices harm consumers? What if the Herald could show that it had tried to outbid the Tribune and the Sun Times for their supplemental news service sub scriptions? Would the Herald's argument be stronger if the exclusive agreements were long-term agreements memo stated Paddock Publications, Inc. v. Chicago Tribune Co., 103 16.3 Gene Washington, Diron Talbert, and Sean Lumpkin, behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly that Heinz would not try to secure a majority base of dis- tribution in a sales area because it had agreed to a "truce with Gerber. Did the companies violate the antitrust laws? Would you need any additional evidence to make this determination? [In re Baby Food Antitrust Litigation 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999).] F.3d 42 (7th Cir. 1996) former professional fooball players, instituted suit on 16.5 Will a dealer who sells a manufacturer's products in an xclusive territory be able to successfully sue the manufac turer under the Robinson-Patman Act if the manufacturer situated players alleging that the National Football League cryngh 2016Crng.gr laming An Rigtes Renned May ? " he

Explanation / Answer

16.1 While talking to your competitor’s employee about the sales promotion is not illegal unless otherwise stated in a legal document you signed, it is considered unethical and unprofessional by most companies. It could lead to trouble for both yourself and the company you work with if this information was to get back to the competing business, as it could generate unexpected competition. However, if the promotion is featured in a trade magazine, whatever details have been made public, you should be able to discuss freely with anyone.

16.2 Under its first part of the Sherman act, exclusive distributorship can be a violation if it generates inter-brand competition, but the specifics of the case are usually taken into account. This can have a negative effect on prices for customers, and when dealing with news outlets, it can create misinformation. If the Herald could prove that they outbid the other two papers and that the agreements where long-term, then it would be a clear violation of the Sherman Act, as it would consist in refusal to deal and it could lead to unfair competition.

16.3 I believe retired football players should be allowed to sell their own likeness as they are just individuals that were once part of a team. Both the NFL and teams should not be able to have control of a player’s image rights after their contract has ended, as they continue to profit greatly from this while the athlete does not. The athletes should have a chance to get their likeness back when they retire and if they so choose to, continue to work with the NFL or their team on a new agreement that allows them to profit from their image.

16.4 As these companies pretty much have a monopoly of the market, the evidence against them shows pretty clearly that there was a coordinated action to raise prizes behind the communications held between them. This could also point towards a possible merger, which would give them an effective monopoly of the industry. Considering this, even if the Sherman Act has fuzzy limits, no further evidence is needed, as there is plenty of proof in written emails.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Y
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.