The defendants were said to have agreed to set predatorily
low prices in the United States, and to fund losses from below-cost sales in the United States by charging supracompetitive prices in Japan.
57) The rationale analysis for the Areeda & Turner standard may be applicable; but brand-name manufacturers would not likely be considered acting predatorily if the average variable or marginal cost pricing standard is rigidly adhered to since it would be expected that their generic product price would be above this amount.
The Ninth Circuit test also appears to indicate that brandname firms are acting predatorily.
The amici also complained about a host of other practices, including predatory subsidization to leverage market power from one market to another, using its superior information about its operating systems to gain a competitive advantage over applications competitors, and both predatorily
bundling and unbundling of various applications programs and operating systems.
A firm that prices predatorily in one geographic market while pricing its goods at higher prices in other geographic markets violates section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act.
A seller that reduces price below the profit-maximizing level in order to drive rivals out of the market is deemed to be pricing predatorily.
In essence, the Japanese were supposed to have engaged in a conspiracy to price predatorily
as a means of monopolizing the U.
With these principles as a framework, the Court remanded the case to the court of appeals, where it could consider whether there is sufficiently unambiguous evidence that would allow a trier of fact to find that the defendants conspired to price predatorily
, despite the absence of any apparent motive to do so.
It first identified plaintiff's sole antitrust theory as that of a long-term conspiracy among all Japanese market participants to price predatorily