MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-2171,80-2288,s. 80-2171 |
| Citation | 708 F.2d 1081 |
| Parties | 1982-83 Trade Cases 65,137, 1983-2 Trade Cases 65,520, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 590 MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Chester T. Kamin, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Howard J. Trienens, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-----------------
OPINION OF THE COURT
--------------------
I. FACTS ......................................................... 1092
A. Background and Initial Entry of MCI ........................ 1093
B. The Interconnection Disputes ............................... 1096
C. The Execunet Decision ...................................... 1097
D. The Pricing Controversies Between
MCI and AT&T ............................................ 1098
E. MCI's Damage Evidence ...................................... 1099
II. REGULATION AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS ............................. 1100
A. The Federal Regulatory Scheme for
Telecommunications ...................................... 1100
B. Implied Immunity ........................................... 1101
C. The Impact of Regulation ................................... 1105
III. PREDATORY PRICING ............................................. 1111
A. Jury Instructions .......................................... 1111
B. Below Cost Pricing ......................................... 1112
C. Defining Measures of Cost .................................. 1114
D. The Proper Cost Standard ................................... 1119
E. Cross-subsidization ........................................ 1123
F. Insufficiency of the Evidence .............................. 1125
G. Pre-announcement ........................................... 1128
H. Telpak Marketing Plan ...................................... 1130
IV. INTERCONNECTIONS .............................................. 1131
A. FX-CCSA Interconnections ................................... 1132
1. The Essential Facilites Doctrine ....................... 1132
2. The Meaning of the Specialized Common
Carrier Decision .................................... 1133
3. "Retroactive" Application of Execunet .................. 1136
4. Instructions on Regulatory Policy ...................... 1137
5. Insufficient Evidence .................................. 1139
6. Evidentiary Rulings .................................... 1141
7. Substantial Impact ..................................... 1143
B. Tying ...................................................... 1144
C. Disconnections ............................................. 1145
D. Denial of Interconnections for Service
Outside of Local Distribution Areas ..................... 1145
E. Multipoint Service ......................................... 1147
F. Inappropriate or Inefficient Interconnections .............. 1150
V. BAD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS AND NOERR-PENNINGTON ................... 1153
A. The State Tariff Filings ................................... 1153
B. Bad Faith Negotiations ..................................... 1158
C. Other Conduct .............................................. 1159
VI. DAMAGES ....................................................... 1160
A. MCI's Proof of Damages ..................................... 1160
B. Causation of Damages ....................................... 1161
C. The Flawed Assumptions of the Lost
Profits Study ........................................... 1164
D. Remand for a Partial New Trial ............................. 1166
VII. THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL ...................................... 1169
A. Fair Trial ................................................. 1169
B. Theories of Defense ........................................ 1173
VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................... 1174
DISSENT 1174
-------
I. HI-LO AND PREDATORY PRICING ................................... 1175
A. The Inappropriateness of Exclusively
Cost-Based Standards .................................... 1175
1. The History and Goals of the Sherman Act ............... 1177
2. LRIC and Consumer Welfare in the Monopoly
Context .............................................. 1180
B. Evidence of AT&T's Predatory Pricing ....................... 1184
II. PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF HI-LO ..................................... 1186
III. DAMAGE PROOF .................................................. 1187
A. Disaggregation ............................................. 1187
B. Assumptions ................................................ 1192
1. The Revenue Assumption ................................. 1192
APPENDIX 1195
--------
A. Jury Instructions .......................................... 1195
B. Special Verdict ............................................ 1196
----
Throughout the opinion the following abbreviations are used: Trial Transcript-Tr., Plaintiff's Exhibit - PX, Defendant's Exhibit - DX, and Appendix of this Opinion - App.
Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit judge.
In this extraordinary antitrust case, 1 defendant American Telephone and Telegraph Company ("AT & T") appeals from a judgment in the amount of $1.8 billion, entered on a jury verdict, in a treble damage suit brought by plaintiffs MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation (collectively "MCI") under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15 (1976). 2
MCI's original complaint, filed March 6, 1974, contained four separate counts: monopolization, attempt to monopolize, and conspiracy to monopolize--all under section 2 of the Sherman Act 3--and conspiracy in restraint of trade--under section 1 of the Sherman Act. MCI alleged that AT & T had committed twenty-two types of misconduct, classifiable into several categories including predatory pricing, denial of interconnections, negotiation in bad faith and unlawful tying. MCI claimed at trial, on the basis of a lost profits study originally prepared in part for financing purposes, that it had suffered damages of approximately $900 million as a result of AT & T's allegedly unlawful actions. 4
The case was tried to a jury between February 6 and June 13, 1980. After completion of MCI's case in chief, the district court directed a verdict in favor of AT & T on seven of the twenty-two alleged acts of misconduct. 5 The remaining fifteen
charges--all based on section 2 of the Sherman Act--were submitted to the jury. A special verdict form required the jury to make a separate finding of liability as to each of the fifteen charges, but permitted the jury to award damages in a single lump sum, without apportioning MCI's claimed financial losses among AT & T's various lawful and unlawful acts. The jury found in favor of MCI on ten of the fifteen charges submitted, and awarded damages of $600 million--a sum equal to two thirds the total damage figure claimed in MCI's aggregated lost profits study. 6 The district court trebled this damage award, as required by section 4 of the Clayton Act, resulting in a judgment of $1.8 billion, exclusive of costs and attorneys' feesAT & T filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial on June 23, 1980. These motions were denied without opinion on July 29, 1980. On August 25, 1980, AT & T filed its notice of appeal. On September 8, 1980, MCI filed a notice of cross-appeal. 7 In this opinion, we reject challenges to certain jury findings upon which AT & T's liability was based, sustain other challenges, and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.
Prior to 1969, the telecommunications industry was regulated as a lawful monopoly. Local exchange service was and still is provided exclusively by one of the twenty-three Bell System operating companies or by one of some 1600 independent telephone companies, depending upon the geographical area involved. 8 Long distance service was provided by the Long Lines Department of AT & T in partnership with these operating companies. 9 The network of long distance transmission facilities was owned in substantial part by Long Lines; however, the interexchange facilities of the local telephone companies, including both transmission and switching facilities, were used in conjunction with Long Lines facilities whenever efficiency required. The local exchange facilities and switching machines belonging to the local companies were also used at each end of a regular long distance call.
This same nationwide network was used as well by AT & T to provide other intercity telephone services, including point-to-point private lines, foreign exchange lines ("FX"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cianci v. Superior Court
......519, 7 L.Ed.2d 483, to Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp". (1981) 453 U.S. 473, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 69 L.Ed.2d 784. . \xC2"... found in the anti-trust laws..' [Citations.] The American Bar Association also proposed an amendment 'based upon the ... (Cf. MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (7th Cir.1983) ......
-
Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC
......See Kaiser Steel Corp . v. Mullins , 455 U.S. 72, 76, 102 S. Ct. 851, 70 L. ...v. American Cemetery Assn ., 938 F.2d 846, 851 (8th Cir. 1991) ("[A]ll ...Colo. April 7, 2010) ; Mediacom Communications Corp. v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc ., 460 F. Supp. ......
-
Delaware Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co.
......v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 995 (7th Cir.1983); Seasongood v. K ... See e.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1133 ......
-
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County, Civ. A. No. R-83-3073.
...... at 111, 99 S.Ct. at 412 ( quoting Exxon Corp. v. Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 133, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 2218, 57 ... and the state-action doctrine in Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40, 102 S.Ct. 835, 70 ... at 91-92, 246 A.2d 261. See also American Oil Co. v. Board of Appeals of Montgomery County, 270 Md. ......
-
What Companies Dont Know Can Hurt Them: Monopolization Offenses
...proof of a relevant market is a required element of Section 2 conspiracy to monopolize claims). 15 See MCI Commc'n v. AT&T Corp., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir. 16 See Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 327-29 (1961). 17 See generally Phillip Areeda & Donald F. T......
-
Table of Cases
...682 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2012), 394 McDonough v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D. Pa. 2009), 188 MCI Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983), 82, 124, 127, 129, 135, 140, 147, 362, 371, 381, 382, 383, 384 MCI Commc’ns v. AT&T, 496 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1974), 389 MCI Tele......
-
A FRAGILITY THEORY OF TRADEMARK FUNCTIONALITY.
...it."). (329) United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 224 U.S. 383, 398 (1912). (330) See MCI Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir. 1983) ("[T]he antitrust laws have imposed on firms controlling an essential facility the obligation to make the facility a......
-
Table of Cases
...Form 6-15 McHenry v. Renne , 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996), Form 2-12 MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. , 708 F.2d 1081, 1207 (7th Cir. 1983), Form 10-04 McKenzie Const., Inc. v. Maynard , 823 F.2d 43, 48 (3rd Cir. 1987), §7:113 McLean v. Flemming, 96 U.S. 245, 24......
-
Single Firm Conduct
...LLC and PJM Power Providers Grp. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 135 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,022 at P 52 (2011). 131 . MCI Comm. Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir. 1983); see also TKO Energy Servs., LLC v. M-I LLC, 539 F. App’x 866, 872 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that “an essential facilities c......