University of North Dakota ACCT 315 Ch 38 1)Expressly exempt from antitrust laws because it is not interstate commerce, according to the United Supreme Court, is digital streaming

University of North Dakota

ACCT 315

Ch 38

1)Expressly exempt from antitrust laws because it is not interstate commerce, according to the United Supreme Court, is

1. 1. digital streaming.
   2. professional baseball.
   3. professional football.
   4. video production.

2.To drive its competitors out of a certain geographic segment of its market, Drones, Inc., sets the prices of its products below cost for the buyers in that area. This is

2. 5. predatory pricing.
   6. price discrimination.
   7. price-fixing.
   8. smart marketing.
3. Pump Makers Inc. makes pumps for fire trucks and conditions shipments of its products to Quality Motors Corporation—a maker of fire trucks—on Quality’s agreement to buy additional pumps only from Pump Makers. This is
   1. a tying arrangement.
   2. a unilateral refusal to deal.
   3. an exclusive-dealing contract.
   4. price discrimination.
4. Say It Inc. and Text Talk Inc. are social media companies. They compete for employees, users, and advertisers. The two firms work together on security threats, however. With respect to antitrust law, this cooperation is most likely
   1. a violation because it is not possible to completely thwart such fraud.

4. 2. a violation because it concerns sharing confidential information.
   3. a violation because it involves setting aside competitive differences.
   4. not a violation because it is not anticompetitive.
5. Power Inc. and QualGas Corporation refine and sell natural gas. To limit the supply on the market and thereby raise prices, Power and QualGas agree to buy “excess” supplies from dealers and “dispose” of it. This is
   1. not within the scope of the Sherman Act.
   2. a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
   3. subject to analysis under the rule of reason.
   4. a deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition.
6. Two Chinese firms, Wong Ltd. and Xiang Ltd., engage in a conspiracy to control the distribution of certain goods in global markets. This may violate U.S. antitrust laws
   1. if the conspiracy has a substantial effect on U.S. or foreign commerce.
   2. under no circumstances.
   3. if the conspiracy has a substantial effect on U.S. commerce only.
   4. if the conspiracy has a substantial effect on U.S. and foreign commerce.
7. Components Inc., a maker of vehicle parts, refuses to sell to DIY Repair Inc., a national vehicle service firm. The maker con vinces Engine Parts Company, a competitor, to do the same. This is
   1. a tying arrangement.
   2. a group boycott.
   3. a trade association.
   4. a market division.
8. Edibles Inc. and Food Stuff Corporation are competitors. Each firm has capital, surplus, and undivided profits in excess of $ 40 million and competitive sales of more than $5 million. Gina and Hal serve as directors on both firms’ boards. Under the Clayton Act’s restriction concerning interlocking directorates, Gina and Hal are
   1. liable for failing to comply.
   2. not liable because the firms’ shareholders can affect company policies.
   3. not liable because the firms are likely to continue to compete.
   4. not liable because the firms’ officers conduct the competitive activities.
9. With respect to antitrust violations, the Federal Trade Commission does not enforce
   1. the Federal Trade Commission Act.
   2. the Sherman Act.
   3. the Clayton Act.
   4. any of the federal antitrust laws.
10. Oil Industries Inc. and Petro Corporation are competing refineries situated on the Gulf coast. The two firms cooperate to obtain federal funds to build a levee that could protect their facilities from rising sea levels. With respect to antitrust law, this effort is
    1. a violation because funds will be spent for an anticompetitive purpose.
    2. a violation because it is “objectively baseless.”
    3. a violation because it involves a conspiracy to affect market power.
    4. exempt from antitrust enforcement.
11. Dairy Cream Inc. makes and sells ice cream. Dairy Cream wants to merge with EZ Freeze Inc., its main competitor and a maker of ice cream and other frozen desserts. In a challenge to the deal on a charge of monopolization, the relevant product market includes ice cream and
    1. Products that are related, such as cake
    2. Products that must be kept cold, such as frozen fruit
    3. No other products
    4. Products that have identical attributes, such as frozen yogurt
12. Bio Med Corporation makes and sells Curative, the most prescribed name-brand pain-relief medication. Drugs Inc. has the potential to make a generic version of the same drug. Bio Med agrees to pay Drugs not to make or sell the generic. This agreement is most likely
    1. A subject to analysis under the rule of reason
    2. A per se violation under the Sherman Act
    3. A deal that neither restrains trade or harms competition
    4. Not within the scope of the Sherman Act
13. American Oil Company joins a cartel that includes foreign participants to set the price of oil. The cartel has a substantial effect on U.S. commerce. With respect to the foreign participants, under U.S. antitrust laws, this is most likely
    1. A violation, depending on the price
    2. A violation, depending on the effect in foreign markets
    3. Not a violation
    4. A per se violation
14. Battery Corporation’s production, distribution, and marketing methods are unique. Its capital value and size are greater than its competitor. A suit is filed against the firm, alleging the offense of monopolization. To determine whether Battery has monopoly power requires looking at
    1. The relevant market
    2. The price of a share of the firm’s stock
    3. The business’s production methods and marketing techniques
    4. The corporation’s size alone
15. Mountain Crest Inc. makes and distributes its branded products to authorized dealers. To prevent price-cutting by dealers in direct competitor, the firm imposes limits to where each dealer can sell the products. This is
    1. Smart marketing
    2. A territorial restriction
    3. A price-fixing agreement
    4. A trade association
16. Dig Inc. is the major wholesale distributor of heavy equipment in six states. Dig’s closest competitor is Excavator Company. The two firms agree that Dig will operate in four of the states and Excavator in the other two. This is
    1. A market division
    2. A price-fixing agreement