Reference no: EM133812158

Question

Anti-Monopoly, Inc., developed and marketed a family board game called Anti-Monopoly. It possessed less than I percent of the market for family QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION FOR CASE 4.5 1. This case arose under the Oklahoma antitrust ute. How similar or dissimilar is the language of that statute to the corresponding federal statute? 2. The court discusses the "essential facilities" doctrine. What do you suppose the plaintiffs were alleging the "essential facility" at issue here was? Why did their argument fail? 3. Do you agree that Pepsi and Coca Cola products are 3. interchangeable? Do you agree with the court's determination that Pepsi products are not their own relevant product market for purposes of the antitrust laws? Is there a way to reconcile consumer behavior with regard to this product with the rules of antitrust law? board games. Hasbro, Inc., the leading manufacturer of family board games, has more than 80 percent of the market. Toys "R" Us is the largest retailer of family board games, with about 35 percent to 40 percent of the retail market. K-Mart is the second-largest such retailer, with about 15 percent of the retail market. Anti-Monopoly and Hasbro compete directly for space in retail stores such as these. Anti-Monopoly brought suit against Hasbro, alleging that Hasbro exercised control over Toys "R" Us and K-Mart by conditioning the sale of its family board games to such retailers on the retailers not purchasing family board games from Anti-Monopoly and other small competitors. Anti-Monopoly alleged that Hasbro's control of Toys "R" Us and K-Mart constituted monopolization of an essential facility in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. How should the court rule on this claim?