United States V. Dentsply International, Inc

Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United 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 teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates the industry, his market share is greater than 75 percent and is about fifteen times larger than that of its next-closest competitor.The defendant use sells 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 marketi ng competitor’s teeth unless they were selling the teeth before 1993. The plaintiff- the federal government files a suit in a federal district court against Dentsply, alleging, a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.Issue: Was the defendant’s preventing its dealer from selling competitors’ products restraint of trade and harm the market? Was the defendant’s act violating of section 2 of the Sherman Act? Decision: Yes, the district court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to grant the government’s request for injunctive relief. Reason: The Section 2 of the Sherman Act – the relevant market in this case was the total sales of artificial teeth to laboratories and dealers combined.The defendant’s 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 mono polistic power, which it is restraints on trade, harm the market. Opinion I agree with the court decision because Dentsply’s act was not allowing dealers to handle competitors’ teeth, and then there will be few choices in the market giving the customer to choice. Dentsply’s monopolistic power could set the teeth price what their want, which the harm the economy and the whole market.