California Bar Journal
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA - OCTOBER 2000
spacer.gif (810 bytes)

MCLE SELF-STUDY

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Self-Assessment Test
spacer.gif (810 bytes)

Answer the following questions after reading the MCLE article on competitor collaboration guidelines. Use the answer form provided to send the test, along with a $20 processing fee, to the State Bar. Please allow at least eight weeks for MCLE certificates to reach you in the mail.


1. The ancillary restraint doctrine provides that restraints ancillary to a legitimate business partnership are

a. illegal per se

b. subject to the rule of reason

c. per se legal

2. The purpose of the Competitor Collaboration Guidelines is to provide guidance to businesses as to when the federal antitrust enforcers may challenge a joint venture among competitors.

3. The difference between restraints that are per se illegal and those subject to the rule of reason is that the latter require an analysis of the market and their impact on competition.

4. Which of the following restraints is governed by the rule of reason?

a. price fixing

b. tying

c. exclusive dealing

d. horizontal market allocation

5. The differences between a competitor collaboration and a merger is

a. a competitor collaboration requires an integration of economic activity

b. a merger ends competition between the parties

c. mergers are not illegal unless they restrain competition

d. mergers may be per se illegal

6. Which of the following is necessary for a true competitor collaboration?

a. a written agreement

b. a contribution of capital or assets

c. a market share below 20 percent

d. the formation of a separate corporation

7. Competitor collaborations are not subject to the pre-merger notification requirement of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

8. In a 1984 Supreme Court decision, restrictions imposed on colleges to broadcast football games were

a. upheld as ancillary to a joint venture

b. held to be per se illegal

c. held to be legal under the rule of reason

d. held to be illegal under the rule of reason

9. Agreements among physicians as to the maximum fees they will charge are

a. subject to the rule of reason if there is risk sharing

b. per se illegal

c. legal if there is risk sharing

d. legal if the market share is less than 20 percent

10. In Broadcast Music v. CBS, the Supreme Court held that an agreement among authors and composers to offer a blanket license through a joint venture was

a. per se illegal

b. a tying arrangement

c. subject to the rule of reason

d. permissible under the antitrust laws

11. The type of competitor collaboration posing the highest degree of antitrust risk is

a. production collaborations

b. internet collaborations

c. R&D collaborations

d. marketing collaborations

12. The type of competitor collaborations posing the lowest degree of antitrust risk is

a. foreign investment collaborations

b. B2B e-commerce collaborations

c. R&D collaborations

d. purchasing collaborations

13. Competitor collaborations in which the combined market shares of the participants is 50 percent are

a. protected by a safe harbor

b. subject to the rule of reason

c. per se illegal

14. Competitor collaborations which enhance “efficiencies” are those that either

a. reduce costs

b. expand output

c. enhance quality, service or innovation

d. all of the above

15. An important factor in assessing whether the participants in a competitor collaboration have market power is

a. an analysis of barriers to entry

b. the length of the collaboration

c. the types of restraints in the collaboration

d. the ability to get “real time” price information

16. If the market share of the participants is 20 percent or less, then the collaboration falls within the safety zone if

a. the collaboration is three years or less

b. there are three or more other competitors

c. there are no per se or “quick look” restraints

d. if it is B2B collaboration

17. The major risk of B2B and other internet competitor collaborations is

a. there are now too many of them

b. exchange of real-time competition sensitive information

c. they cannot be monitored

d. they are non-exclusive

18. A restraint is reasonably necessary to a competitor collaboration if

a. it is essential to the collaboration

b. it is subject to the rule of reason

c. it will help achieve the business purpose of the collaboration

d. it does not restrain competition among the participants

19. A competitor collaboration that does not fall within one of the safety zones is

a. subject to the rule of reason

b. discouraged by the federal enforcement agencies

c. per se illegal

d. a violation of Guidelines

20. The antitrust analysis applicable to competitor collaborations is

a. based solely on market power

b. based solely on the Guidelines

c. was determined 100 years ago

d. involves an extensive factual analysis of the proposed collaboration

Normal">a. subject to the rule of reason

b. discouraged by the federal enforcement agencies

c. per se illegal

d. a violation of Guidelines

20. The antitrust analysis applicable to competitor collaborations is

a. based solely on market power

b. based solely on the Guidelines

c. was determined 100 years ago

d. involves an extensive factual analysis of the proposed collaboration