This project was completed by Intensity. Intensity joined Secretariat on February 1, 2023.
A large enterprise computer server and software company was alleged to have engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including establishing pricing and policies that blocked competitors from providing customers with support services. The alleged anticompetitive behavior included customer lock-in via economic tying, whereby customers could receive software and firmware updates only if they also purchased software support services from the original manufacturer that were priced far above competitive levels. This practice was alleged to enable the server manufacturer to block competition for hardware support by pricing the hardware services well below competitive levels. The plaintiffs in the case sought to recover damages related to the alleged anticompetitive behavior.
Intensity researched and analyzed marketplaces for multiple enterprise hardware and software support services, evaluated market power within the relevant markets, and quantified lost profits to a competitive provider of the products at issue.
Intensity’s analysis included consideration of economic tying arrangements and economic lock-in. For example, Intensity evaluated the economics of access to software updates and firmware for customers to purchase support from third-party providers in addition to the server manufacturer. In this case the server manufacturer was alleged to have forced customers to purchase expensive software support services in order to gain access to the updates, and leveraged the profits to undersell competitors for hardware services.
The issues Intensity addressed include market definition, analysis of market power, economic tying arrangements, economic lock-in, lost profits, and econometric evaluation of but-for revenues.
FirstEnergy at the Sixth Circuit Reshapes Securities Class Actions
In its landmark ruling in Owens, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. (“FirstEnergy”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s class‑certification order, clarifying a new standard for certifying a class in securities class actions.
Since the election in November 2024, there have been many changes to DOJ’s enforcement policies. Earlier this year, now-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, announced at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), that going forward prosecutors and investigators would primarily focus on “the most egregious white-collar crime” to better “incentivize [companies] to come forward, come clean, reform, and cooperate with the government.”
Trust and Trade Podcast: Are IP Remedies in Big Tech Cases Going Too Far?
Dr. Keith Waehrer joins hosts Anant Raut and Jennifer Dixton, along with Joe Jerome (DuckDuckGo) on the American Bar Association’s Trust and Trade podcast in the episode “Are IP Remedies in Big Tech Cases Going Too Far?”