Antitrust Law Analysis: Whole Foods, Music Industry and Antitrust Laws

This assignment delves into the complexities of antitrust law, examining its application in two distinct scenarios: the food retail sector and the music industry. The first part analyzes the competitive landscape of food stores, particularly focusing on Whole Foods and how it can be challenged based on differentiation strategies and pricing. It explores the Sherman Act and non-discriminatory provisions, offering an opinion on whether to pursue a case within the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. The second part shifts focus to the music industry, presenting various scenarios involving band members, record companies, and distribution agreements. It assesses the legality of proposed business arrangements, including solo careers, joint ventures, and exclusive distribution rights, in the context of antitrust regulations. The assignment also examines the impact of online streaming services and piracy on the music industry, along with pricing strategies and wholesale agreements. References to relevant legal texts are provided to support the analysis.

FINAL:
I
Food stores compete primarily based on differentiation rather than simply on location and price.
Differentiating factors can include such things as low prices, ethnic appeal, quality prepared
foods, expanded variety within a specific category or department, customer service, or perishable
departments such as meats or produce and Lars, the proprietor, has spent years cultivating
relationships with food suppliers. All the suppliers might not be from the same region also where
Whole Foods makes the purchase agreement and it also applies for the perishable products. Lars
should make the purchase deal with the small retailers who made no agreement with Whole
Foods specially for perishable items because 33% still serves to the People after Whole Foods
Complete their purchase deal to serve the market.So it can definitely challenge the Whole
Foods 1st Policy would be succeeded.
Demand for the following specific types of organic products has increased dramatically just over
the past five years. Whole Foods average price is 12% higher than the other Competitors or
retailers in the Market though it gives 5% discount on Purchases of $250 in groceries, and there
are a good number of customers who checks the price with the other retailers or Sellers.
Customer can easily check with other retailers or other Competitors of Whole Foods with their
Price because except 8-10% of Customer there is a huge percentage of Customer and even it can
increase because We can see the trend of higher demand increasing day by day of all the
products. Setting a Standardized and Lower Price would help Lars to generate higher number of
Customers. So, the Challenge to the Second policy will be succeeded.
Lars, Super Yurt sells herbal remedies which is a USP for them. This Herbal remedies is the
product Which Lars sells since beginning and they are expertise on that. So If They can expand
in this particular brand attributes and can easily provide health and beauty aids for Customers
along with more specialized and variant way. So, the Challenge to the Third policy will be
succeeded.
These three suggestions are with the Antitrust Law as Antitrust Law itself with benefits of
the Customer and overall efficiency.
II
Antitrust Law itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency. Sherman Act attempts to
prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. It preserves a competitive
marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. The non-discriminatory provisions (“NDPs”) are
completely with the Sherman Act Antitrust Law because the “NDPs” not against Sherman act
antitrust law and it does not force customer to change decision and even it does not break the
Competitive environment between the competitors. As an employee in Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice I will give my opinion to the Supervisor that the Divisions should not pursue
the Case.
III
As there C5 has no IP Protection and it came after G then by lowering the price of C by 20 %
with the combined deal by making it as compulsory product is not a Lawful deal. This deal can
force Customer to change their buying decision even though the product is not IP Protected and
there is another product G which came before C5. Antitrust Law itself with benefits of the
Customer and overall efficiency and Sherman Act protect consumers from abuses and protect
competitive Environment.

MIDTERM:
Answer One:
(A) The members would terminate their solo careers and would agree to use Nod, rather
than Winkin or Blinkin, as the producer for Rash records. -- This is with Law as there will
be no Legal Complications with this decision because it is upon their individual rights
unless they made any previous agreement with their Company regarding Solo Careers.
(B) Rash would form and fund a new record company called 2112 Productions, and use 2112
to distribute Rash’s music.—Yes it is also a safe thinking as per legal complications because
Band is New as well as the Distribution Company will be newly formulated.
(C) Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx would form a joint venture to distribute Rash’s music. The
joint venture would have rights in Rash albums, but each joint venture partner would retain the
rights it already had in the respective members’ solo works. Relative to (A), this proposal would
allow the record labels to coordinate the release of new material with distribution of material
from each player’s solo career. When a new Rash album was about to be released, the
respective joint venture partners could hit the pause button on marketing and promotion of solo
works.— This proposal might contradict with the plan as per B ,because If Rash would
already form the distribution company , that time if any other distribution Company
exists then it might conflict with law. But yes Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx can form
only one Joint Venture for Rash and it should be clearly agreed by all three artists and the
producer they choose to work with. Above all Alex, Geddy Neil would terminate their solo
careers.
(D) Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx would form a new corporation, which they own in equal
shares, to distribute Rash’s music. Each record company would assign its rights in the
members’ solo works to this company. This proposal would allow for coordination of the
release of new material, as in (B), and also would allow for the release of new albums that
mixed solo material with new Rash material. – Yes it can go well as per law because If the
individual rights and the joint work of Alex, Geddy, Neil in Rash Bands will be distributed
by the same joint venture distribution company formed by Echo, Hemispheres, and
Syrinx, then it can be good for business as well as good for the Artist with respective of
law.
(E) Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx would sign contracts with Rash pursuant to which each
company would have the exclusive right to distribute Rash music in a particular region-- Echo in
Canada, Hemispheres in Europe, and Syrinx in the United States. In addition, each company
would agree not to distribute Rash music or the members’ solo records in any other territory.
-- Yes this is perfect for the Joint Venture as it is been formed by three different
companies and if it will follow the same then there will be no conflict with the territories
and conflict of business between Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx.
Answer Two:
Geddys Suggestion of Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx stating that it would be fine with the band
if each company concentrated solely on the geographic market it was best suited for and ignored
other markets is perfectly ok as per Business and Law perspective. But his second suggestion
which termed online music streaming services as pittance which I am not agreed with, because it
is trickledown effect which can make huge Margin of Revenue for each music. I suggest for
Distribution, Online Streaming and last but not least Sue with huge amount against those who
does the piracy. If any single entity or person gets caught because of piracy then it

Will automatically creates fears which will minimise the piracy and protect the business. To implement it properly Case
filing is needed as per the piracy act to preserve the original right.
Answer Three:
Echo, Hemispheres, and Syrinx set minimum wholesale price of $10 per record which is equal for all whole sellers and
retail price is also same for all Customers which is $19.95 per record. So, A Wholesaler can set their price for retailer in
their own terms and also can make a deal with the retailers but the ultimate retail price should be same to the consumers.
It completely agrees with Law and it is with Antitrust Law and it does not violate antitrust law. What Temple, Limelight
and XYZ does as per their business agreement and business conditions are as per Law and it is also as per Antitrust Law
which itself with benefits of the Customer and overall efficiency. I cannot see any putative Class of consumers also
because of the Business Model that is been implemented by the Company and the Wholesellers or retailers mentioned
here because not any type of customers will get suffered because of these business decisions.
There should not be any claim to be proceed because No Wholesellers neither any retailers mentioned here has not
violated Antitrust Law or against Customers Benefit.
References:
Concept of Antitrust Law:
Sullivan, Lawrence Anthony. Handbook of the Law of Antitrust. West Group, 1977.
Sullivan, L. A. (1977). Handbook of the Law of Antitrust. West Group.
Sullivan LA. Handbook of the Law of Antitrust. West Group; 1977 Jun 1.
Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application:
Areeda, Phillip, Donald F. Turner, and Herbert Hovenkamp. Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application. Vol. 2. Aspen law & business,
1978. Areeda, P., Turner, D. F., & Hovenkamp, H. (1978). Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application (Vol. 2). Aspen law & business.
Areeda P, Turner DF, Hovenkamp H. Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application. Aspen law & business; 1978.