United States V. Dentsply International, Inc

Name Lei Chen Course ACCT 362W Prof Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date 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 case that the defendant- Dentsply international, Inc. , is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial odontiasis for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates the industry, his commercialise share is greater than 75 percent and is about fifteen times larger than that of its next-closest competitor.The defendant use conducts his teeth to dealers of dental products then the dealers 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 service 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 marketing the teeth before 1993. The plaintiff- the federal presidential term files a suit in a federal district court against Dentsply, alleging, a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.Issue Was the defendants observeing its dealer from selling competitors products restraint of trade and harm the market? Was the defendants act violating of section 2 of the Sherman Act? Decision Yes, the district courts design was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to grant the governments request for injunctive relief. Reason The Section 2 of the Sherman Act the relevant market in this case was the complete 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 distribution points, and to prevent giving the customer a choice. It was a plan to maintain monopolistic former, which it is restraints on tra de, 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.