| | It would seem simple, if wrong-headed, but anti-trust action quickly becomes intractable, if not incomprehensible.
Start is with this:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. H&R BLOCK, INC.
Last year, approximately 140 million Americans filed their tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Increasingly, taxpayers are choosing to prepare their U.S. federal and state tax returns using digital do-it-yourself tax preparation products (“Digital DIY Tax Preparation Products”), either over the Internet or on their desktop computers. Last year, an estimated 35 to 40 million taxpayers filed their taxes using Digital DIY Tax Preparation Products. In the U.S. Digital DIY Tax Preparation Product market, the three largest firms service approximately 90% of all consumers. H&R Block’s proposed acquisition of TaxACT, if allowed to proceed, would combine the second- and third-largest providers in that market and essentially create a duopoly. The proposed acquisition would (1) eliminate aggressive head-to-head competition between H&R Block and TaxACT, and (2) increase the likelihood that the two remaining significant providers would substantially reduce competition through successful coordination; both in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
And then take on this:
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Hynix Semi-conductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. Rambus Inc., Plaintiff, v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sam-sung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A., Defendants. Rambus Inc., Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sam-sung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Defendants. Rambus Inc., Plaintiff, v. Micron Technology, Inc., and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Defendants.
Dr. Richard Gilbert, the Manufacturers' jointly retained economics expert, filed his report. Dr. Gilbert identifies six spe-cific technology markets that he concludes Rambus has monopolized: latency technology, burst length technology, data acceleration technology, clock synchronization technology, precharge technology, and write latency technology. See Luedtke Decl., Ex. A, at ¶ 60 (hereinafter "Gilbert report"). Despite Hynix's allegations that Rambus monopolizes the markets for DRAM and logic chips, Dr. Gilbert does not identify any relevant product markets. Dr. Gilbert also does not attest to any of the more general technology market allegations made in the Manufacturers' pleadings.
Links to links here:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/handrblock.html
|
|
