According to, the District Court decisions it shows that there should be considerable evidence showing that one manufacturer had signed an agreement with respect to the goods sold in a way that it injured the other firm.
In Powell, J., Burger, Ch. J., and Marshall, Rehnquist, and OConnor, JJ judgment the court should have relevant justification to bring an antitrust suit, before coming up with a lasting solution. The lawyers edition head notes suggest that the Court of Appeals can find a way out to determine the reality of the conspiracy.
For one to bring antitrust suit against these manufacturers there should be an expertise testimony to be offered by the American companies to generate realistic reasons to base their judgments and material fact for instance their opinion should be based on a mathematical construction that depends on assumptions concerning the petitioners costs ( Brennan ,Kennedy & Stevens 1999).
The fact that Japanese manufacturers charge lower prices than American manufacturers in the American market and by lowering its export prices in collaboration with its government is not a guarantee that they recover antitrust compensation from them. The claim made should make an economic sense in that the assumption of conspiracy is sensible and more persuasive with the view of competing implication
2. What if, instead of discussing the topics listed above, the manufacturers discussed the detail of individual sales, production, inventories, current price lists, and future price trends? They would have solved their disagreement by coming up with proper price range, furthermore they would have obtained the relevant data concerning their businesses and share ideas on either management of sales, how to improve production, inventories and compare their current price in order to determine a relative range. They would have improved their quality of businesses as they avoid the time and money wasted in suing one another in court. They would do an assessment of price and output effects and would have avoided the injury caused by predatory conduct in markets. The would have negotiated on the terms of the sale in response to rates set by the manufactures, thus avoid being victims of an antitrust violation ( Injury to competition 2009).
3. What if they discussed average costs, freight rates, and terms of past transactions without identifying buyers or sellers. They would have conducted confidential analysis to determine their current freight rates and expenses and operational requirements. Also, they would have realized their average costs and improve control and access management information, project on their savings, check on time performance.
4. Should a court considering this case conclude that there has been an antitrust violation? Why or why not? No, because there was small evidence that was of importance to the claimed predatory pricing conspiracy. , there was no established realistic material fact to determine whether the company was involved in illegal conspiracy which led to American companies to suffering injury. It was difficult to determine the maximum-price-fixing agreements and market forces alone determined the kind of goods and services offered, their prices, and the success or fail of particular sellers. The other reasons are that the opinions they used were not based on economic factors as there was no mathematical analysis to determine whether the petitioners were involved in long-term, below-cost sales or not. (Supreme Court, 1986)
Lastly the two manufacturers were competing to be the best ,so the like hood of having a winner or a looser was there, consequently making one of them to be demoralized hence rising to fight back.