This case revolved around delivery of newspaper advertisements. For most of history, delivery of advertisements to newspapers was handled physically by courier services. With technology’s expansion, it became possible to effectively do the same work electronically. AD/SAT began its electronic practices in 1986. AD/SAT was the only corporation at the time to do so. Most of their work involved a satellite network which was owned by the Associated Press ("AP"). AP is a voluntary association with over 1,500 members who generally collect and distribute news and photographs. Ten years after AD/SAT initiated its electronic filing system, AP launched its own program (AdSEND) which attempted to accomplish the same results as AD/SAT’s program. In the early 1990’s, AD/SAT had tried to re-invent its product using digital technology, but market fluctuations and other factors made their plans difficult to implement. AP, with a stronger product, gave newspapers the necessary equipment free of charge with which AP could compete using the digital technology. AD/SAT began the suit in 1994, filing a plethora of complaints against various organizations and newspapers. One by one, the district courts denied them all. The Court of Appeals noted that the market share information was one of the parts most fatal to AD/SAT’s claims, and that the district court had decided the case correctly.

The first issue discussed by the Court was AD/SAT’s alleged monopolization claim. The test to determine the validity of such a claim was held to be: 1) predatory behavior; 2) intent to monopolize; and, 3) dangerously close to success of monopolization. The proper context of the three-prong test involves products and geographical markets. After defining the market, the analysis involves a balancing test, with such factors to as: barriers to entry in the market, defendant’s share of the market, strength of competition, and along with others. The parties stipulated to the fact that the United States was the geographical area at issue. "Market" is defined by "area of effective competition," and that the products, when interchanged, are reasonably similar and accomplish the same goals, but they do not have to be identical. AD/SAT contended that it’s "three hour or less" delivery was a market separate and distinct from all other advertisement-delivery services. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim. AD/SAT’s own research showed that 80% of all advertisement delivery was still accomplished physically by overnight carriers, rather than electronically. Since the Court held that the market was defined as "delivery of advertisements" and not "electronic delivery of advertisements" (and not "rush electronic delivery of advertisements"), there could be no attempted monopoly because the market share was simply too small. The Court stated that AP’s AdSEND was in no danger of anti-competitive effects against the physical couriers

Plaintiff next claimed monopoly leveraging. The court noted that such a claim doesn’t rest so much on market share as its unfair effects on competition (not competitors) on a different market. AP conceded that it does have a monopoly on wire services, its behavior did not rise to the level necessary to meet a leveraging claim. It did not condition its AdSEND on the use of any of its other services, nor was there any other "tangible harm" to competition. The Court of Appeals again affirmed the findings of the district court.

The third issue was an antitrust conspiracy claim. A Sherman Act conspiracy claim involves: 1) an intended, deliberate, concerted action to enter into a conspiracy; and, 2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court also noted that AP had no rational motive to enter into the conspiracy alleged by AD/SAT. AD/SAT also accused the other member newspapers separately of entering into a conspiratorial agreement. After a lengthy analysis, the court adduced that there was insufficient evidence to support any claim against any of the defendants, and affirmed the district court’s decision.

Summary    <Analysis>   Full-Text   Case Index