Antitrust litigation

[alpha_dk]

So, I know the EU is already investigating Sony for its Blu ray practices (cite) (I know they are investigating both, but the article says the investigation specifically is wondering about why BluRay has more exclusive supporters than HD-DVD.  Nothing has come of this yet, and probably nothing will). 

However, when I heard about this a while back, it got me thinking.  IF Sony had won this generation of consoles, might they have been guilty of antitrust violations in America?

Take the Microsoft case from way back when; they had a monopoly in a market (OSs), and used it to get a monopoly in other markets (IE, WMP, etc [NOT office here.  Office helped them to get a monopoly in windows]).

Looking at what Sony's plan was: Use they're 'existing' monopoly in consoles [this is where the argument breaks down a bit -- there was obviously no guarantee that they would have a monopoly this generation.  In my view though, coming from two industry-dominating consoles into a third industry dominating console probably would have voided the possibility that it wouldn't happen].  In any case, use this existing monopoly in consoles to leverage a new monopoly in High Definition Video.  They would not be protected by any sort of 'logical extension' practices (as antitrust law is notoriously uncaring about whether or not a practice would be okay for a smaller company).

They would get some protection in that the fields are slightly related; that is, the Blu-Ray player helps them make larger games with more textures, etc.  However, I personally am not of the opinion that that would help them enough.

Fortunately for them, it is not going to end up mattering even if they do end up winning, because (hopefully) we can all agree that even if they do start picking up steam, they absolutely will not have as domineering a position in the market as they have the last two generations. 

--end short version--

Now for the more legalese version(cite1, cite2).  Note that IANAL, and while I am probably going to end up going to law school and I sometimes read case law for fun, I am also not that versed in reading laws or whatnot, so DO NOT take my words for anything close to fact at all.

Anticompetitive law is comprised of a small number of laws compared to how important (i feel) it is. 

 The Sherman Act provides protection against 'unreasonable' contracts, agreements, etc. in restraint of trade.  I do not think Sony actually participated in any of these, but IF there was some backroom dealings between Sony's movie studios and the other in collusion against HD-DVD, that would be HUGELY illegal.  I personally doubt it happened, but who knows?  Only time/investigations will tell for this one. I am also not sure if these deals existed that they would fall under the Sherman Act... someone more versed in Antitrust law would have to tell me. The "Concerted Refusal to Deal"  part of it certainly sounds relevant, at the very least.

  This is also one of the areas of antitrust law that can apply whether or not a monopoly exists, at least for certain offenses (collusion to price fix, for example).  It also does not need there to be a formal agreement; any oral or implied agreement is prosecutable here.

  Another part of the Sherman Act is the "Tying Arrangements" wherein a company has problems with tying in a second product with one that people supposedly want to buy.  I think here I will quote the first citation in this section, which says it better than I ever could:

 

The antitrust problem with tie-ins is that the leverage generated by economic power in one market is used to accomplish sales in another. Once it is established that a tie-in is present; that the seller has sufficient economic power in the desired product to force the tie-in; and that a "not insubstantial" amount of sales is involved (amounts as small as $60,800 have been found to meet this standard), they are generally deemed unlawful.

 To me, it seems that if Sony had achieved a dominant position this generation, they would have ran afoul of this. Like I said, IANAL.

 There are other laws that govern Antitrust litigation, but I am lazy and this is already longer than I wanted it to be.  Discuss?