Author Question: In varying degrees across the states, the courts do not look with favor on certain contracts that at ... (Read 99 times)

dalyningkenk · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

In varying degrees across the states, the courts do not look with favor on certain contracts that at times are made part of the employment arrangement, which of the following is not in that category:
a. noncompete agreements
b. substance abuse agreements c. exculpatory agreements
d. anti-raiding covenants
e. all of the other specific choices may be restricted in employment

Question 2

Attempted Monopolization. In 1995, to make personal computers (PCs) easier to use, Intel Corp and other companies developed a standard, called the Universal Serial Bus (USB) specification, to enable the easy attachment of peripherals (printers and other hardware) to PCs. Intel and others formed the Universal Serial Bus Implementers Forum (USB-IF) to promote USB technology and products. Intel, however, makes relatively few USB products and does not make any USB interconnect devices. Multivideo Labs, Inc (MVL), designed and distributed Active Extension Cables (AECs) to connect peripheral devices to each other or to a PC. The AECs were not USB compliant, a fact that Intel employees told other USB-IF members. Asserting that this caused a general cooling of the market for AECs, MVL filed a suit in a federal district court against Intel, claiming in part attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act. Intel filed a motion for summary judgment. How should the court rule, and why?

elyse44 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

b

Answer to Question 2

Attempted monopolization
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of Intel. First, the court pointed out that MVL and Intel did not compete in the market for USB interconnect devices. Second, there was no evidence that Intel's participation in the USB-IF and the drafting of the USB Specification con-stitutes anticompetitive . . . activity. The court found that the USB standard benefited consum-ers and developers of PC products, including MVL. Third, the court pointed to the overwhelm-ing evidence that the Intel employees' statements were true and no evidence has been offered to create an issue of fact as to their accuracy. The court explained, The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. To sum up, MVL has failed to produce evidence that Intel's products compete with the AEC in the relevant market; that Intel's statements were anything but truthful; that Intel's motives were anticompetitive; or that Intel's actions harmed competition. There is therefore no genuine issue of material fact for trial on MVL's antitrust claims.