354:
31:
256:(DSL) service monopolized and attempted to monopolize regional DSL market. The ISP's claimed that the telephone companies accomplished this by squeezing the providers' profits by charging them high wholesale price for DSL transport and charging consumers low retail price for DSL Internet service. Ultimately, the court concluded that the case was not
429:
103:
The
Supreme Court held that a "price squeezing" claim cannot be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when the defendant is under no duty to sell inputs to the plaintiff in the first place.
307:
82:
260:, as it was not clear whether the providers had unequivocally abandoned their price-squeeze claims; prudential concerns favored answering the question presented.
439:
414:
424:
419:
395:
361:
220:
35:
245:
at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals’ profit margins.
336:
434:
249:
388:
353:
252:(ISP), alleging that incumbent telephone companies that owned infrastructure and facilities needed to provide
253:
311:
234:
206:
74:
381:
54:
Pacific Bell
Telephone Co., dba AT&T California, et al. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., et al.
158:
237:
when it charged other
Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an
241:
connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no
242:
126:
365:
150:
138:
277:
318:
162:
134:
63:
408:
224:
170:
146:
118:
77:
89:
327:
257:
238:
230:
227:
30:
304:
Pacific Bell
Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
216:
Pacific Bell
Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
24:
Pacific Bell
Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
195:
Breyer (in judgment), joined by
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
369:
278:"PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. LINKLINE COMMUNICATIONS"
430:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
199:
191:
183:
178:
107:
97:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
187:Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
223:case in which the Court unanimously held that
389:
8:
396:
382:
20:
337:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
269:
18:2009 United States Supreme Court case
7:
350:
348:
368:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
362:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
440:United States Supreme Court stubs
415:United States Supreme Court cases
314:438 (2009) is available from:
425:United States antitrust case law
352:
29:
420:2009 in United States case law
1:
219:, 555 U.S. 438 (2009), was a
360:This article related to the
248:This case was initiated by
221:United States Supreme Court
456:
347:
328:Oyez (oral argument audio)
250:Internet service providers
204:
112:
102:
45:Decided February 25, 2009
28:
254:digital subscriber line
43:Argued December 8, 2008
235:Sherman Antitrust Act
207:Sherman Antitrust Act
88:129 S. Ct. 1109; 172
233:did not violate the
435:AT&T litigation
159:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
280:. The Oyez Project
123:Associate Justices
377:
376:
243:predatory pricing
212:
211:
205:Section 2 of the
447:
398:
391:
384:
356:
349:
341:
335:
332:
326:
323:
317:
290:
289:
287:
285:
274:
108:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
455:
454:
450:
449:
448:
446:
445:
444:
405:
404:
403:
402:
345:
339:
333:
330:
324:
321:
315:
299:
294:
293:
283:
281:
276:
275:
271:
266:
161:
151:Clarence Thomas
149:
139:Anthony Kennedy
137:
127:John P. Stevens
93:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
453:
451:
443:
442:
437:
432:
427:
422:
417:
407:
406:
401:
400:
393:
386:
378:
375:
374:
357:
343:
342:
298:
297:External links
295:
292:
291:
268:
267:
265:
262:
210:
209:
202:
201:
197:
196:
193:
189:
188:
185:
181:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
163:Stephen Breyer
135:Antonin Scalia
124:
121:
116:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
95:
94:
87:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
452:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
418:
416:
413:
412:
410:
399:
394:
392:
387:
385:
380:
379:
373:
371:
367:
363:
358:
355:
351:
346:
338:
329:
320:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
296:
279:
273:
270:
263:
261:
259:
255:
251:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
226:
222:
218:
217:
208:
203:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:Case opinions
177:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:Chief Justice
114:
113:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
85:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
370:expanding it
359:
344:
303:
284:November 20,
282:. Retrieved
272:
247:
225:Pacific Bell
215:
214:
213:
200:Laws applied
171:Samuel Alito
166:
154:
147:David Souter
142:
130:
119:John Roberts
81:
53:
15:
192:Concurrence
409:Categories
264:References
60:Docket no.
90:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
302:Text of
239:Internet
231:AT&T
184:Majority
98:Holding
340:
334:
331:
325:
322:
319:Justia
316:
169:
167:·
165:
157:
155:·
153:
145:
143:·
141:
133:
131:·
129:
64:07-512
364:is a
310:
228:d/b/a
366:stub
312:U.S.
286:2013
258:moot
83:more
75:U.S.
73:555
308:555
92:836
78:438
411::
306:,
397:e
390:t
383:v
372:.
288:.
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.