Arthur v. Microsoft: The Supreme Court of Nebraska Sacrifices Nebraska's Antitrust Law for Indirect Purchasers to Have Standing in Antitrust Claims
Loading...
Authors
McCoy, Kate A.
Issue Date
2005
Volume
38
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|Antitrust laws are based on the strong public policy against economic power being concentrated in a small number of people. Thus, antitrust regulation seeks to protect competition and the public interest. Although the federal government began promulgating antitrust regulation in 1890, today, state antitrust statutes regulate trade also. As a result, state antitrust law may differ from federal antitrust law, and states' antitrust laws may differ from one another. Therefore, application of antitrust law can be inconsistent depending on the jurisdiction. The recent claims against Microsoft in different jurisdictions illustrate this irregularity in antitrust law. In response to this inconsistency, many states have attempted to reconcile state and federal law by passing harmonization statutes. These statutes dictate the effect of federal antitrust law on state antitrust law. |In Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., the Supreme Court of Nebraska interpreted Nebraska's harmonization statute in relation to a United States Supreme Court ruling that indirect purchasers do not have standing to bring a federal antitrust claim. In Arthur, the Supreme Court of Nebraska adopted the reasoning of the Iowa Supreme Court ...
Description
Citation
38 Creighton L. Rev. 155 (2004-2005)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law