Page 1 of 1

Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:41 pm
by 3|ink
My antitrust exam is this week. I felt pretty comfortable about it until I started looking at prior year exams. Ugh.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:45 pm
by Jsa725
.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:58 pm
by 3|ink
Jsa725 wrote:sup my dude. what worries you?
My professors focus on the economics. There's very little on these exams that looks anything like the cases I read.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:03 pm
by Jsa725
.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:30 pm
by tivera23
Can anyone explain when § 3 of the Clayton Act can be used? I know § 7 is for mergers, but what is § 3 specifically used to enforce?

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:44 pm
by Jsa725
.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 8:57 pm
by tivera23
Perfect! Thanks!

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:13 pm
by redsox550
anyone got some good practice exams? Like something with some answers. Even CALI has nothing. So if anyone can point me in the right direction that would be fantastic. Thanks

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:44 pm
by 3|ink
Jsa725 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
Jsa725 wrote:sup my dude. what worries you?
My professors focus on the economics. There's very little on these exams that looks anything like the cases I read.
in what way do your profs focus on economics? plz elaborate, perhaps i can help. feel free to PM.
They present the question in a way so that you won't be able to recognize the form of the transaction.

Example: Market definition.

One question on last year's exam requires you to determine whether a premium version of a product is in a separate market from the brand market. Imagine there are four manufacturers who make the brand and premium version. Each competitor sells the brand and premium version at the same prices. When one of four manufacturer's slightly reduced the price on its premium product, a large number of consumers switched from the brand to this competitor's premium product. In fact, the overall market sales for the premium product nearly doubled. From this, I believe we're supposed to infer that the products are substitutes. Therefore, none of the firms could really have market power in the premium market.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:20 pm
by Jsa725
.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:22 pm
by 3|ink
No it wasn't a merger question. The premium seller ultimately engaged in conduct to remain the top premium seller. The implied question was whether that amounted to monopoly maintenance (the test just asked if the conduct was illegal). The answer depended entirely on the market definition.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:40 pm
by Jsa725
.

Re: Antitrust

Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:31 pm
by Blumpbeef
Tagg