Monopoly for Self-Monopoly for Self-InterestInterest

Craig W. Roggow

AbstractAbstract This presentation identifies 2 separate antitrust This presentation identifies 2 separate antitrust

cases, involving 2 different companies; cases, involving 2 different companies; describing each corporation and casedescribing each corporation and case

Many companies intentionally or unintentionally Many companies intentionally or unintentionally implement strategies or policies to prevent their implement strategies or policies to prevent their competitors form thriving in the market. Such competitors form thriving in the market. Such self-interest is seen as selfish and monopolisticself-interest is seen as selfish and monopolistic

While a company may struggle to gain dominate While a company may struggle to gain dominate control over their respective industry, control over their respective industry, attempting to create an unfair monopoly is not a attempting to create an unfair monopoly is not a solution for their corporate successsolution for their corporate success

Multimedia FormatsMultimedia Formats

1.1. To view the website publishing of this To view the website publishing of this research project and all presentation formats: research project and all presentation formats: http://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/mohttp://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/monopoly-for-self-interestnopoly-for-self-interest//

2.2. To obtain a PowerPoint training file of this To obtain a PowerPoint training file of this presentation separately: presentation separately: http://http://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/wp-contemergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/monoply-for-self-interest-nt/uploads/2012/08/monoply-for-self-interest-presentation_roggow_2.pptpresentation_roggow_2.ppt

3.3. To view the video training of this presentation To view the video training of this presentation separately: separately: http://http://youtu.be/wgh_4TsrBN8youtu.be/wgh_4TsrBN8

OverviewOverview Companies inherently want to gain large Companies inherently want to gain large

market share at all costsmarket share at all costs The largest market share occurs for monopolies The largest market share occurs for monopolies

which control the market in an industrywhich control the market in an industry Some companies devise strategies to selfishly Some companies devise strategies to selfishly

gain monopolistic control over an industry but gain monopolistic control over an industry but never winnever win

Examples of Walk vs. AMA (1Examples of Walk vs. AMA (1stst case) and case) and Ramous vs. Micron Technology (2Ramous vs. Micron Technology (2ndnd case) case)

Objects of the Objects of the ProjectProject

Identify two separate antitrust cases and Identify two separate antitrust cases and the potential effects on their respective the potential effects on their respective industry; fully describing each company, industry; fully describing each company, market, and antitrust case against them market, and antitrust case against them

Compare and contrast the cases, finding Compare and contrast the cases, finding key themes or differenceskey themes or differences

Identify the pros and cons from the Identify the pros and cons from the outcomes of these two antitrust casesoutcomes of these two antitrust cases

Chiropractic’s and AMA Chiropractic’s and AMA Profiles (1Profiles (1stst case) case)

The chiropractic profession is involved with The chiropractic profession is involved with the diagnosis, treatment and avoidance of the diagnosis, treatment and avoidance of neuromuscular-skeletal system neuromuscular-skeletal system

The AMA is a powerful physician The AMA is a powerful physician organization whose goal is to better organization whose goal is to better promote public health, progress the promote public health, progress the interests of physicians, patients, and raise interests of physicians, patients, and raise money for medical educationmoney for medical education

Both organizations were found within the Both organizations were found within the medical industrymedical industry

Outline Chiropractic (Wilk) vs. Outline Chiropractic (Wilk) vs. AMAAMA

In 1976 Chester Wilk filed a case against AMAIn 1976 Chester Wilk filed a case against AMA Wilk claimed AMA had illegal schemes to Wilk claimed AMA had illegal schemes to

destroy themdestroy them Claims were found true and AMA was guilty of Claims were found true and AMA was guilty of

chargescharges Chiropractic practice was permitted as an Chiropractic practice was permitted as an

independent profession within the health care independent profession within the health care industryindustry

Rambus and Micron Rambus and Micron Technology Profiles Technology Profiles

(2 (2ndnd case) case)

Rambus and Micron Technology were with Rambus and Micron Technology were with in the high tech microchip production in the high tech microchip production industryindustry

Specifically, Rambus produced RDRAM chips Specifically, Rambus produced RDRAM chips and also dealt with technology licensingand also dealt with technology licensing

Outline of Micron Technology Outline of Micron Technology vs. Rambus vs. Rambus

Rambus accused Micron Technology of planning to Rambus accused Micron Technology of planning to unfairly remove its RDRAM from the marketunfairly remove its RDRAM from the market

Rambus claimed that Micron Technology kept its Rambus claimed that Micron Technology kept its SDRAM chip artificially low priced, so their chip would SDRAM chip artificially low priced, so their chip would be perceived as highly pricedbe perceived as highly priced

Micron Technology denied the claims by providing Micron Technology denied the claims by providing evidence of faulty RDRAM designs and production evidence of faulty RDRAM designs and production costscosts

Rambus was found guilty for intentionally destroying Rambus was found guilty for intentionally destroying evidenceevidence

Contrasts and Contrasts and ComparisonsComparisons

Both cases have one entity trying to gain Both cases have one entity trying to gain monopolistic control in their respective monopolistic control in their respective markets markets

Rambus and the AMA are both unable to gain Rambus and the AMA are both unable to gain monopolistic market control respectivelymonopolistic market control respectively

The lawsuit hurt the reputation of AMA and The lawsuit hurt the reputation of AMA and Rambus, while chiropractic’s and Micron Rambus, while chiropractic’s and Micron Technology each gained positive reputationsTechnology each gained positive reputations

Pros and ConsPros and Cons ProsPros

Selfish interests are not recognized by Selfish interests are not recognized by the law as an excuse to seek a monopolythe law as an excuse to seek a monopoly

Less powerful organizations in a given Less powerful organizations in a given industry are protected from monopolistic industry are protected from monopolistic exploitation by larger corporationsexploitation by larger corporations

ConsConsThe losing industry gains a negative The losing industry gains a negative

reputation that affects its profitabilityreputation that affects its profitability

ConclusionConclusion Attempting to create an unfair monopoly is Attempting to create an unfair monopoly is

not a solution for corporate success.not a solution for corporate success. Companies in various industries inherently Companies in various industries inherently

want to gain an advantage or monopolywant to gain an advantage or monopoly Most self-interest driven monopoly cases Most self-interest driven monopoly cases

rarely prevailrarely prevail The AMA and Rambus lose, as there was The AMA and Rambus lose, as there was

enough evidence to issue verdictsenough evidence to issue verdicts It is not lawful to destroy evidence, as it may It is not lawful to destroy evidence, as it may

result in a total ban from the industryresult in a total ban from the industry

Blog PostBlog Post

For a full report on this project please visit For a full report on this project please visit my blog post:my blog post: httphttp://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/monopoly-f://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/monopoly-for-self-interest/or-self-interest/

ReferencesReferences Brodkin, J. (2011). Rambus loses $4 billion antitrust Brodkin, J. (2011). Rambus loses $4 billion antitrust

suit filed against memory chip makers. Retrieved suit filed against memory chip makers. Retrieved from from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/rambus-loses-4-billion-antitrust-suit-filed-against-memory-chip-makers/

DePamphilis, D. M. (2012). DePamphilis, D. M. (2012). Mergers, acquisitions, Mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities, 6/eand other restructuring activities, 6/e, San Diego: , San Diego: Academic Press.Academic Press.

Lender, D., and Jason, B., (2011). Micron Lender, D., and Jason, B., (2011). Micron Technology, Iinc. V. Rambus. Retrieved from Technology, Iinc. V. Rambus. Retrieved from http://www.weil.com/micron-tech-inc-v-rambus-inc/

Murphy, D., Schneider, M., Seaman, D., Perle, S., Murphy, D., Schneider, M., Seaman, D., Perle, S., and Nelson, C. (2008). How can chiropractic and Nelson, C. (2008). How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? become a respected mainstream profession? Chiropractic and Osteopathy Journal.Chiropractic and Osteopathy Journal. Vol. 16. Iss. Vol. 16. Iss. 10.10.

References (cont.)References (cont.)

Noto, Y. (1999). American Medical Association, Noto, Y. (1999). American Medical Association, AMA and its membership strategy. Retrieved from AMA and its membership strategy. Retrieved from www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/takemi/files/rp15www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/takemi/files/rp157.pdf7.pdf

Painter, F., (2012). The Chiropractic Antitrust Suit Painter, F., (2012). The Chiropractic Antitrust Suit Wilk et al vs. the AMA, et al. retrieved from Wilk et al vs. the AMA, et al. retrieved from http://www.chiro.org/Wilk/http://www.chiro.org/Wilk/

Pealstein, D. and Bloch, R. (2003). Antitrust law Pealstein, D. and Bloch, R. (2003). Antitrust law developments. ABA web store, USA.developments. ABA web store, USA.

Roggow, C. (2012). Monopoly for Self-Interest. Roggow, C. (2012). Monopoly for Self-Interest. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/monophttp://mergerandacquisitionstrategies.org/monopoly-for-self-interest/oly-for-self-interest/

Created By Created By

Craig W. RoggowCraig W. Roggow

________________

Copyrights © 2012 Craig W. Roggow. All Rights

Reserved.