I’m working on a Writing exercise and need support.

Week 6 Discussion

WEEK 6 DISCUSSION – “Monopolies” Please respond to the following:

  • In today’s economy, there are a wide number of powerful companies who in all appearances control massive segments of different markets. Using the Internet, identify one example within the last year of a large company that has (or might be) engaged in anticompetitive behavior and what type. Next, suggest three ways that this behavior could be viewed as either a Horizontal or Vertical restraint of trade. Be sure to explain and define these terms and provide support for your response and, post an example NO ONE HAS POSTED ABOUT.
  • Identify and explain the different forms of restraint of trade in your example and, what are some of the defenses? Support your answer.
  • i also need you to respond to another student this is following onata Bartkus
    RE: Week 6 Discussion

    Good Morning Class and Professor Baggot,Anticompetitive behavior that is regulated by the Federal law is broken down to two large retrains: Horizontal and Vertical. The differences between Horizontal restraint of trade and Vertical restraint of trade is that Horizontal scheme occurs between competitors in the same level, and Vertical scheme results from agreements between various levels of parties in the same chain of distribution.In August, 2019 IONSOUTH-MOBILE, LLC, f/k/a COX NUCLEAR PHARMACY d/b/a IONSOUTH DIAGNOSTIC PHARMACY LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and UPPI, LLC brought an antitrust class action lawsuit against the supplier of radiology medicines Jubilant Draximage, Inc alleging it entered unlawful agreements and monopolized markets in violation of federal antitrust law (Case 1:19-cv-00518-N). Jubilant Draximage conducted unlawful practices for monopolizing 5 radiopharmaceutical products. First, the company acquired two new approved drug applications for competing with two of their products and
    warehoused them by not offering or allowing them to be sold in the market (
    eliminated competition and remaining a sole source supplier). After that, they increased prices of their original radiopharmaceutical products by anywhere between 500 to 1700 percent. Furthermore, the company was selling these products to the pharmacies only under unreasonable agreement conditions of purchasing minimum amounts of other company’s offered products (
    Tying and bundling of the products). These actions are the factors of monopolization, which is a Horizontal restrain of trade and is prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Seems that supplier actions excluded any possible competition and resulted into sole price control which gave them the
    market power. In addition, by acquiring two new drug applications and
    warehousing them, company prevented potential competitors entering the market and this behavior can be deemed as an exclusionary conduct, which is another basis for establishing unlawful monopoly. By forcing pharmacies to purchase other products in order to acquire these exclusive drugs, company enforced
    tying arrangement which in this situation is unlawful as it was “the forced purchase of one commodity in order to obtain a separate desired commodity or service”. This conduct is called an unreasonable restrain on trade in the relevant market and is prohibited under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Therefore, although the lawsuit against Jubilant Draximage has just been filed, I believe the plaintiff has a very strong case if the facts in the allegations are proven to be true.Thank you,Sonata Bartkus
    https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Ionsouth-Mobile-LLC-et-al-v-Jubilant-Draximage-Inc/Corporate-Disclosure-Statement-filed-by-Plaintiff-Ionsouth-Mobile-LLC/alsd-1:2019-cv-00518-00015Jennings, M. M.
    Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. [Strayer University Bookshelf]. Retrieved from