Spring over navigationen

This brief guide provides an overview of the areas covered by the Guidelines as well as horizontal cooperation on IPR licensing between competitors (who benefit from a separate block exemption with accompanying guidelines). It begins with an overview of the main legal points for evaluating agreements between competitors before considering the following types of cooperation between competitors: Gansler`s memo is the pioneering document that deals with the DoD`s policy on anti-competitive teammates. It defines an “exclusive team agreement” as existing if “[1] two or more companies, in writing, by `agreement` or by other means, agree to join together to follow a doD purchase program and [2] continue to agree not to merge with other competitors for that program.” The memo states that exclusive teaming agreements have the “potential” to reduce competition. Gansler`s memo advises DoD contract managers and program managers to “check” exclusive team agreements to determine if they are anti-competitive. If so, the memo highlights options to follow, including: for example, in 1994, the DOJ challenged a team agreement between defense companies Alliant Techsystems and Aerojet-General. The DOJ claimed that the two companies were the only qualified suppliers of combined effect munitions for a U.S. military supply effort in 1992. Alliant and Aerojet entered into a teaming agreement to complete the acquisition, which would have reduced the number of potential competitors in the tender procedure from two to one. Complaint, United States, against Alliant Techsystems Inc. and Aeorjet-General Corporation, No.

941-1026 (Ill. C.D. 19 January 1994). The defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ, each paying a fine of more than two million dollars and agreeing to implement an antitrust compliance program. See recent judgment, em>US v. Alliant Techsystems Inc and Aerojet-General Corporation, No. 941-1026 (Ill C.D. 1994). The FTC posed similar challenges. For sale, in 1993, the FTC filed a lawsuit against four school bus companies that submitted joint offers to a school district. The FTC claimed that the companies had agreed not to compete with the school district contracts — although the companies claimed to be a joint venture, the FTC claimed that there was no meaningful integration between the companies or improvements in efficiency offered by the cooperation.

FTC v.B&j School Bus Services, Inc., 116 F.T.C 308 (1993). em>Sie also Northrop Grumman v. McDonnell Douglas, 705 F.2d 1030, 1050-54 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . .