Question

YOU MUST read the "UNITED STATES' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" case, a pursuant to the antitrust prosecution of Dentsply International, Incorporated. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, in a complaint filed in 1999, alleged that Dentsply violated §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act and §3 of the Clayton Act. Read the Brief filed by the DOJ in 2002 and answer the following questions:

6. How did Denstply violate §3 of the Clayton Act, according to the government?

Answer 1

How did Denstply violate §3 of the Clayton Act, according to the government?

Dentsply International, Inc. is a manufacturer of prefabricated artificial teeth.

Dentsply adopted formal, written criteria prohibiting its existing dealers from adding competing lines to their product offerings, and requiring new dealers to drop some or all competing lines in order to obtain Dentsply's products.  Thus, Denstply, entered into illegal restrictive dealing agreements prohibited by Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

Section 3 of the Clayton's Act  prohibits exclusionary practices, such as tying, exclusive dealing, and predatory pricing, that lessen competition in the respective business category in the market. Section 3 rules out practices that lessen competition. A manufacturer who also offers service for the goods it sells may be prohibited from favoring its own service organization.

Thus, DOJ (Department of Justice) concluded that Denstply violated the Section 3 of the Clayton Act.