CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
“Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a firm to ‘monopolize.’” United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 2). The offense of monopolization requires proof of two elements: “(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570–71 (1966).
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Microsoft explains how to evaluate claims of monopolization. The first element—“monopoly power in the relevant market”—consists of two inquiries: (1) market definition, both product and geographic, and (2) power within the relevant market. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both. Id. The second element—“willful acquisition or maintenance” of monopoly power—involves a burden-shifting inquiry. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticompetitive effects resulting from the challenged conduct. Id. at 58. If the plaintiff makes out its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to “proffer a ‘procompetitive justification’ for its conduct,” that is, “a nonpretextual claim that its conduct is indeed a form of competition on the merits because it involves, for example, greater efficiency or enhanced consumer appeal[.]” Id. at 59. Finally, “[i]f the monopolist asserts a procompetitive justification . . . then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to rebut that claim.” Id. “[I]f the monopolist’s procompetitive justification stands unrebutted, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs the procompetitive benefit.” Id.
134
