United States V. Dentsply International, Inc

Name Lei Chen Course ACCT 362W Prof Kenneth Ryesky Esq. realize 11/4/2010 Case Caption get together States v. Dentsply International, Inc. , Court United States of Appeals, Third Circuit. Date Argued September 21, 2004. February 24, 2005 Citation 399 F. 3d 181 Facts This is an antitrust parapraxis that the defendant- Dentsply international, Inc. , is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other soda water device. Dentsply dominates the industry, his market share is greater than 75 percent and is about cardinal times larger than that of its next-closest competitor.The defendant use sells his teeth to head teachers of dental products in that locationfore the traders supply the teeth to dental laboratories, which fabricate dentures for sale to dentists. As the hundreds of dealer who compete with each other on the basis of price and receipts some other manufactures sell their teeth directly to the laboratories basis of on the price and service Dentsply prohibits its dealers from marketing competitors teeth unless they were change the teeth before 1993. The plaintiff- the federal government files a suit in a federal district cost against Dentsply, alleging, a violation of naval division 2 of the Sherman Act.Issue Was the defendants preventing its dealer from selling competitors products restraint of mickle and victimize the market? Was the defendants act violating of section 2 of the Sherman Act? Decision Yes, the district courts judgment was turn and the case was remanded with directions to grant the governments request for injunctive relief. Reason The incision 2 of the Sherman Act the relevant market in this case was the resume sales of artificial teeth to laboratories and dealers combined.The defendants act preventing its dealer from selling other competitors product was designed to block competitive statistical distribution points, and to prevent giving the node a choice. It was a plan to assign monopolistic power, which it is restraints on trade, harm the market. Opinion I agree with the court decision because Dentsplys act was not allowing dealers to handle competitors teeth, and then there will be few choices in the market giving the customer to choice. Dentsplys monopolistic power could set the teeth price what their want, which the harm the economy and the whole market.