Choosing a Competition lawyer is not an easy task, but you can take a few precautions to make the right choice. The main factors you should look for include: expertise and experience, and the availability of other lawyers.
Unreasonable horizontal restraints of trade
Choosing the right Concurrentiebeding advocaat can make the difference between winning or losing in the legal fray. Whether you are a manufacturer, a distributor, or a retailer, it’s important to understand how restraint of trade law applies to your situation.
The most basic definition of a restraint of trade is an activity that prevents one party from conducting business normally. This can be as simple as a contract interference or as involved as coercing another party to stop competing. In order to establish a restraint of trade, plaintiffs must demonstrate a clear pro-competitive motivation. If a business is stifling competition through a non-compete agreement with employees, for example, a plaintiff may be able to argue that it’s “in the best interest of the business” to keep them out.
A restraint of trade is not the only type of legal agreement that may be considered an antitrust violation. Vertical restraints may also be considered, including resale price maintenance, exclusive dealing arrangements, and others. These types of arrangements are commonplace in the manufacturing world, but they can raise antitrust concerns. In particular, vertical restraints can be a boon to competition in some ways, such as limiting production output or raising prices. In some cases, these restraints are imposed by an entity without market power.
Monopolization or attempt to monopolize trade
Attempts to monopolize trade in the United States are forbidden under the Sherman Antitrust Act. This act prohibits agreements to fix prices, fix output, and exclude competitors from a market. It also bans mergers and acquisitions, which concentrate power.
The Sherman Antitrust Act defines a monopoly as a firm that has a long-term power to raise prices. In order to determine if a company is a monopoly, courts examine whether the firm has a monopoly on a product or a geographic market.
For example, in the 1970s, monopolization cases were filed against International Business Machines and Xerox. They claimed that the defendants maintained monopolies by strategically introducing key product innovations. They also claimed that the defendants’ monopolies were maintained by taking advantage of their customers’ unwillingness to pay high prices for products.
In order to determine whether a company has a monopoly on a particular product or a market, courts analyze the firm’s market share and ask whether the firm had a significant percentage of the market. If the firm does not have a significant percentage of the market, courts will not consider the firm to be a monopoly.
There are a number of ways that a company can obtain a monopoly. These methods include innovative products that are superior to those of competitors, exclusionary practices, and business acumen.