United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
Decision Date | 28 February 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-1698,82-0192. Misc. No. 82-0025(PI). |
Citation | 552 F. Supp. 131 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY; Western Electric Company, Inc.; and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Ronald G. Carr, James P. Denvir, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Howard J. Trienens, Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
The following were designated by Judge Greene to argue on behalf of interested persons at a non-evidentiary hearing regarding the proposed consent decree held on June 29-30, 1982:
Deborah A. Dupont, Nat. Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs, Washington, D.C., for Nat. Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs.
Carl D. Lawson, Albert Halprin, Federal Communications Com'n, Washington, D.C., for Federal Communications Com'n.
Jeffrey H. Olson, Citizens Communications Center, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., for Black Citizens for a Fair Media, et al.
Philip J. Mause, Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi, Washington, D.C., for Public Service Com'n of Wis., et al.
Charles O. Monk, II, Baltimore, Md., for State of Maryland, et al.
J. Roger Wollenberg, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C., for Southern Pacific Communications Corp.
Harry M. Shooshan, III, Shooshan & Jackson, Washington, D.C., for Geller, et al.
Malcolm R. Pfunder, Hamel, Park, McCabe & Saunders, Washington, D.C., for Tandy Corp.
John M. Dempsey, Lansing, Mich., for State of Michigan, et al.
Jack Shreve, Tallahassee, Fla., for Nat. Ass'n of State Utility Consumer Advocates.
William E. Willis, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for Satellite Business Systems.
Stanley R. Jones, Jackson, Jones & Price, Tustin, Cal., for San/Bar, et al.
Herbert E. Marks, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, Washington, D.C., for Independent Data Communications Manufacturers.
Richard E. Wiley, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C., for American Newspaper Publishers Association, et al.
Jay E. Ricks, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for Nat. Cable Television Ass'n, et al.
John E. Bryson, San Francisco, Cal., for California Public Utilities Commission, et al.
Judgment Affirmed February 28, 1983.See103 S.Ct. 1240.
These actions are before the Court1 for a determination whether a consent decree proposed by the parties is in the "public interest"2 and should therefore be entered as the Court's judgment.Over six hundred comments from interested persons, many of them objecting to various aspects of the proposal, have been received, and the Court has considered briefs submitted by the parties and others, and it has heard extensive oral argument.This opinion discusses the principal questions raised by these interested persons, and it embodies the Court's decision on the appropriateness of the proposed decree under the Tunney Act's public interest standard.
The opinion is divided into twelve parts.Part I relates the history of the litigation and the terms of the proposed decree.The next two sections contain analyses of two underlying legal issues—the standard of review to be applied by the Court under the Tunney Act(Part II) and the relationship between the decree and state regulation (Part III).The following section(Part IV) considers the question whether the divestiture of the local Operating Companies is in the public interest.Two sections discuss the removal of restrictions from AT & T— Section V as a general matter, and Section VI in the context of the provision of information and of electronic publishing services.The next two sections directly relate to the Operating Companies: Section VII considers whether the proposed limitations on Operating Company activities are in the public interest and Section VIII whether the decree makes adequate provision for access by intercity carriers to Operating Company networks.Part IX discusses the issues arising from the division of assets between AT & T and the Operating Companies;Part X considers special issues and provisions; and Part XI deals with problems of implementation and enforcement.Part XII contains the Court's summary and conclusion.
On January 14, 1949, the government filed an action in the District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Western Electric Company, Inc.3 and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Inc.(Civil ActionNo. 17-49).4The complaint alleged that the defendants had monopolized and conspired to restrain trade in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and installation of telephones, telephone apparatus, equipment, materials, and supplies, in violation of sections 1,2, and3 of the Sherman Act,15 U.S.C. §§ 1,2, and3.5The relief sought included the divestiture by AT & T of its stock ownership in Western Electric; termination of exclusive relationships between AT & T and Western Electric; divestiture by Western Electric of its fifty percent interest in Bell Telephone Laboratories;6 separation of telephone manufacturing from the provision of telephone service; and the compulsory licensing of patents owned by AT & T on a non-discriminatory basis.
The court record reveals little activity in the case between the date of the filing of the complaint in 1949 and the entry of a consent decree in 1956.Except for the notation that an answer was filed in April, 1949, there are no record entries until the Fall of 1951 when the government filed and the court ordered compliance with several discovery requests.Following the discovery order, there is another two-year gap, and it is not until April 27, 1953, that another record entry is found.This entry indicates that defendants were given two additional months to complete their compliance with the government's 1951discovery requests.The next reference is to the transcript of a hearing held on January 24, 1956, during which the consent decree was approved as being in the public interest.Seepp. 137-138infra.
The gaps in the court record are partly filled by a report of a committee of the United States House of Representatives7 which conducted an intensive investigation of the circumstances surrounding the entry of the consent decree.Report of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary on the Consent Decree Program of the Department of Justice, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., January 30, 1959(Committee Print) hereinafter Subcommittee Report.That report reveals that the parties were quite active between the time of the filing of the government's discovery requests in 1951 and the signing of the consent decree in 1956.
As early as February 28, 1952, the president of Bell Laboratories, Dr. M.J. Kelly, met with Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett and other members of the Department of Defense to enlist their help in persuading the Justice Department to suspend prosecution of the action8 until the end of the Korean War,9 a suspension the Attorney General refused to grant.10
AT & T continued its attempts to end the litigation as soon as the Eisenhower Administration took office.Its executives and lawyers met with officials of the Departments of Defense and Justice throughout the first six months of 1953.Subcommittee Reportat 51-52.These efforts culminated in a meeting on June 27, 1953, during a judicial conference held at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, between T.B. Price, AT & T's general counsel, and Attorney GeneralHerbert Brownell.According to a memorandum prepared by Price following this meeting, Attorney General Brownell said that he believed that "a way ought to be found to get rid of the case," and that AT & T "could readily find practices that they might agree to have enjoined with no real injury to their business."Memorandum of T.B. Price (March 3, 1954)reprinted inSubcommittee Reportat 53-54.11
Shortly after this meeting, AT & T again urged the Defense Department"to intercede with the Justice Department to have the case settled on a basis that would not require divorcement of Western."Subcommittee Reportat 55.To that end, Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson had a letter hand-carried to Attorney General Brownell urging him to end the litigation without divesting Western Electric.The rationale stated for this position was that the severance of Western Electric would "effectively disintegrate the coordinated organization which is fundamental to the successful carrying forward of these critical defense projects," and would "be contrary to the vital interests of the Nation."Subcommittee Reportat 56.The Wilson letter was actually prepared by AT & T.12
Periodic negotiations between AT & T and the government continued through 1954 and 1955, and by early December, 1955, the government and AT & T had reached an agreement.13
The consent decree which was the product of this process included neither the divestiture of Western Electric14 nor any of the other structural relief originally requested by the government.Instead, an injunction was issued which precluded AT & T from engaging in any business other than the provision of common carrier communications services; precluded Western Electric from manufacturing equipment other than that used by the Bell System; and required the defendants to license their patents to all applicants upon the payment of appropriate royalties.
Despite the substantial differences between the structural relief requested in the government's 1949 complaint and the relief actually...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, Civ. A. No. 92-2247
...(D.C.Cir.1977) ("Execunet I"); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 580 F.2d 590 (D.C.Cir.1978) ("Execunet II"); United States v. AT & T, 552 F.Supp. 131, 227 (D.D.C.1982) (provision of Modified Final Judgment assuring non-discriminatory access of interexchange carriers to local Such prices......
-
In re Keniston
...own rulings by means of criminal contempt, courts are authorized to use their contempt power sua sponte. E.g., United States v. A.T. & T., 552 F.Supp. 131, 317 (D.D.C.1982), affirmed, Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001, 103 S.Ct. 1240, 75 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983). Significantly, the constit......
-
Capital Telephone Co., Inc. v. New York Telephone Co.
...they contend that the doctrine of state action immunity does not apply to the telecommunications industry, citing United States v. AT & T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd mem., 460 U.S. 1001, 103 S.Ct. 1240, 75 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983), and that, even if it did, telecommunications regulations......
-
National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs v. F.C.C.
...and AT & T entered into a consent decree providing that AT & T would divest itself of the BOCs as of early 1984. See United States v. AT & T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C.1982), aff'd mem., --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1240, 75 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983). In addition to the BOCs, almost 1500 independent loca......
-
A brief history of frand: analyzing current debates in standard setting and antitrust through a historical lens
...States v. Western Elec. Co., 1956 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 68,246, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4076 (D.N.J. 1956). See United States v. AT&T Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 135–38 (D.D.C. 1982) (describing the background of the 1949 litigation and 1956 consent decree). 2015] A BRIEF HISTORY OF FRAND 65 While th......
-
Rethinking broadband internet access.
...of long distance services in FCC regulatory proceedings and the government's case against AT&T, see United States v. AT&T Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 161-62 (D.D.C. 1982) (concluding that AT&T used its monopoly over local telephone service to foreclose competition in the long distanc......
-
Regulated Industries
...U.S.C.C.A.N. 10 [hereinafter CONF. REP.]. 106. See 47 U.S.C. § 152, note (a)(1). The decision adopting the consent decree is reported at 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). This decree, sometimes referred to as the AT&T Decree or t......
-
Essential facilities.
...687 F.2d 591,594 (2d Cir. 1982). (2.) See Modification of Final Judgment, reprinted in United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 226-34 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (3.) Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Merger Guidelines......
-
Act 41, SB 374 – Civil rights; handicapper discrimination; references to handicapped persons; change to persons with disabilities. Amends secs. 102 & 304b of 1991 PA 179 (MCL 484.2102 & 484.2304b).
...in the modification of final judgment entered pursuant to a consent decree in United States v American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), and in the consent decree approved in United States v GTE Corp., 603 F. Supp. 730 (D.D.C. (l) "LATA" means the local access and......
-
Chapter 340, SF 677 – An act relating to public utilities; providing for the reduced regulation of certain competitive telephone services, with limitations and procedures; requiring persons providing private shared tenant service to grant certain access; requiring a study and report on universal service assistance; providing for...
...transport area (LATA)" means a geographical area designated by the Modification of Final Judgment in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982). Subd. 6. [NONCOMPETITIVE SERVICE.] "Noncompetitive service" means a service that has not been classified as competitive by......
-
Chapter 308, SF 1029 – An act relating to utilities; establishing program to provide communication-impaired people with devices enabling their use of telephones; creating advisory committee and requiring report; providing for payment of costs of program; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 237
...transport area (LATA)" means a geographical area designated by the Modification of Final Judgment in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), including modifications in effect on the effective date of sections 2 to 5. Subd. 10. [LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE.] "Local exc......
-
Chapter 216, SF 1675 – An act relating to state government; making changes to health and human services policy provisions; modifying provisions related to children and family services, child support, child care, continuing care, disability services, the telephone equipment program, chemical and mental health, health care, human...
...transport area (LATA)" means a geographical area designated by the Modification of Final Judgment in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), including modifications in effect on the effective date of sections 237.51 to Subd. 10. Local exchange service. "Local exc......