3M Wins on Appeal in Antitrust Case.Business Editors ST. PAUL St. Paul as a missionary he fearlessly confronts the “perils of waters, of robbers, in the city, in the wilderness.” [N.T.: II Cor. 11:26] See : Bravery , Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 14, 2002 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has granted judgment in 3M's favor on the monopolization mo·nop·o·lize tr.v. mo·nop·o·lized, mo·nop·o·liz·ing, mo·nop·o·liz·es 1. To acquire or maintain a monopoly of. 2. To dominate by excluding others: monopolized the conversation. claim brought by LePage's, a transparent tape competitor of 3M's. In so ruling, the Court reversed a jury verdict against 3M. The appellate court A court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a trial-level or other lower court. An unsuccessful party in a lawsuit must file an appeal with an appellate court in order to have the decision reviewed. agreed with 3M that its pricing and other business practices in selling tapes were lawful Licit; legally warranted or authorized. The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. in all respects. "This is good news for 3M because it affirms that companies may compete vigorously, and that we can continue to offer high-quality products and serve our customers with innovative programs," said Moe Nozari, executive vice president, 3M Consumer and Office Products Market. "We've remained confident that our business initiatives are legal, proper and pro-competitive, and this ruling confirms that." |
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion