United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Westinghouse_Electric_Co.
United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 648 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1981), is a patent-antitrust case in which the United States unsuccessfully tried to persuade the court that a patent and technology licensing agreement between major competitors in the highly concentrated heavy electrical equipment market—Westinghouse, Mitsubishi Electric (Melco) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)—which had the effect of territorially dividing world markets, violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Government had two principal theories of the case: (1) the arrangement is in unreasonable restraint of trade because its effect is to lessen competition substantially by precluding the Japanese defendant companies from bidding against Westinghouse on equipment procurements in the United States, when they are re
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.
xsd:integer
50587938
xsd:integer
1088877295
rdf:langString
a unanimous panel
xsd:integer
471
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-08
xsd:integer
1980
<second>
17280.0
rdf:langString
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-18
xsd:integer
1981
rdf:langString
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Defendants-Cross-Appellants, v. United States of America, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee
rdf:langString
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
rdf:langString
United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.
rdf:langString
Duniway
rdf:langString
United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 648 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1981), is a patent-antitrust case in which the United States unsuccessfully tried to persuade the court that a patent and technology licensing agreement between major competitors in the highly concentrated heavy electrical equipment market—Westinghouse, Mitsubishi Electric (Melco) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)—which had the effect of territorially dividing world markets, violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Government had two principal theories of the case: (1) the arrangement is in unreasonable restraint of trade because its effect is to lessen competition substantially by precluding the Japanese defendant companies from bidding against Westinghouse on equipment procurements in the United States, when they are ready, willing, and able to do so; and (2) the arrangement is an agreement—explicit or tacit—to divide markets, which is illegal per se under § 1. Neither theory prevailed.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
33083