August 13, 2014

NCAA’s Loss In O’Bannon Trial May Be Only A Partial Victory For Competition

By Jeffrey Shinder and David Scupp

Although competition scored a win on Friday in the student athletes’ antitrust suit led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon against the NCAA, it wasn’t a complete blowout.

Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a 99-page decision that permanently enjoins the NCAA from enforcing its blanket restriction on FBS football and Division I basketball collegiate athletes receiving any portion of the licensing revenue generated from the use of the players’ names, images, and likenesses.

The decision, rendered after trial in In re Student Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, held that the NCAA’s restrictions violated antitrust law. The decision is significant: it marks the first time that a court has heard a challenge to the NCAA’s “amateurism” principles, it cuts through the NCAA’s rhetoric, and it rules largely in favor of the plaintiffs. But, while a significant victory for plaintiffs, the relief obtained was limited in ways that may unnecessarily restrict competition.

click here for more »

Leave a comment »

Categories: Antitrust Litigation

    August 7, 2014

    Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Intel Antitrust Litigation

    By David Golden

    Plaintiffs in the long-running In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation class action have suffered a major setback with last week’s denial of class certification by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

    The lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleges that Intel illegally excluded its major rival, Advanced Micro Devices (commonly referred to as “AMD”), from the U.S. market for x86 computer microprocessors[1] by paying computer manufacturers “loyalty payments” and “rebates” to use only Intel chips. The proposed class is compromised of indirect purchasers that bought computers that contained Intel microprocessors. The plaintiffs contend Intel’s payments to computer manufacturers reduced competition for chips, and ultimately raised the prices consumers paid for computers.

    click here for more »

    Leave a comment »

    Categories: Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law, Antitrust Litigation

      August 4, 2014

      Massachusetts Court Hosts Debate On Whether Partners HealthCare Merger Settlement Will Affect The Common Health Of The Commonwealth

      By Daniel Vitelli

      A Massachusetts state court has extended the time for a contentious debate on a proposed antitrust settlement that the Massachusetts State Attorney General says will help hold down medical expenses, and critics say will result in greater market power for the state’s largest health care system.

      Attorney General Martha Coakley is asking Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet L. Sanders to approve a consent judgment that reflects a settlement agreement the Attorney General’s office has reached with Partners HealthCare System, Inc. The deal resolves an investigation by the Attorney General’s office into Partners’ acquisitions of South Shore Health and Educational Corp. (South Shore Hospital) and Hallmark Health Corp. (Lawrence Memorial Hospital and Melrose-Wakefield Hospital).

      The court has scheduled a hearing on the proposed antitrust settlement for Sept. 29, 2014. The court has also extended the public comment period on the settlement to Sept. 15, and given the Attorney General until Sept. 25 to respond to the comments.

      click here for more »

      Leave a comment »

      Categories: Antitrust Litigation

        June 16, 2014

        In re Student Athlete Name and Likeness Litigation – Recap Of The First Week Of Trial

        By David Scupp

        The participants in the highly anticipated, and potentially transformative, antitrust trial In re Student Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation spent their first week of trial grappling with the myths and realities of college athletics.

        Plaintiffs, led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, challenge the NCAA’s rules denying compensation to college athletes for use of their name and likeness in television broadcasts, rebroadcasts, game clips, and video games. To win, plaintiffs will have to overcome the NCAA’s “amateurism” justification for restricting its athletes’ compensation – a defense that the NCAA has employed successfully for decades. This will be one of, if not the, primary battlegrounds in the case. Much of the testimony heard during the first week of trial focused on this issue.

        Plaintiffs opened their case by calling O’Bannon himself. His testimony sought to debunk the “myth” of the “student athlete” that participates in college athletics merely as an “avocation.” He explained that at UCLA academics were not a priority, with the 40 to 45 hours he spent per week on basketball related activities, dwarfing the 12 hours per week he spent studying. O’Bannon asserted that he attended UCLA to play basketball, and only “masqueraded” as a student. He also made clear that he does not see college athletes as “amateurs.”

        click here for more »

        Leave a comment »

        Categories: Antitrust Litigation

          June 16, 2014

          EU General Court Upholds Record 1.06 Billion Euro Antitrust Fine Against Intel

          A View from Constantine Cannon’s London Office

          By Irene Fraile

          The General Court of the European Union has dismissed Intel’s appeal of the European Commission´s decision fining the computer chip manufacturer a record 1.06 billion euros for breaching EU competition law.

          The European Commission imposed the fine on Intel in May 2009, after finding that Intel abused its dominant position in the x86 CPU microprocessors market by attempting to foreclose Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), its main rival, between 2002 and 2007.

          According to the Commission’s complaint, which was filed in 2000, Intel (a) had conditioned rebates to strategically important customers on their agreeing to source all, or almost all, of their supplies from Intel, and (b) had paid certain customers (HP, Acer, Lenovo) to halt, delay or limit the launch of specific products incorporating chips from AMD. The Commission also concluded that Intel had attempted to conceal these anticompetitive practices, which formed part of a long-term strategy to squeeze AMD out of the market.

          click here for more »

          Leave a comment »

          Categories: Antitrust Enforcement, Antitrust Litigation, International Competition Issues

            « Previous Entries   Next Entries »






            © 2009-2014 Constantine Cannon LLP. Attorney Advertising. Disclaimer.