The Minnesota Attorney General Can Sue The Mega Computer Chip Assignment

The manganese Attorney oecumenic Can Sue The Mega Computer Chip Manufacturer - Assignment ExampleThe attorney general erect sue the Mega Computer Chip Manufacturer in the federal court. This is beca usance the United States Justice Department send away use its motives to present antitrust cases that are criminal under the federal antitrust laws. The federal courts are able to show that the MCCM has a market share by number and revenue of chips sold at 80 and 90% respectively. Additionally, Original Equipment Manufacturers, a national company, has the responsibility of selling the MCCM chips. On the other hand, the manganese attorney general go off sue the MCCM for antitrust and monopoly violation in the state of Minnesota. This is because the state give the bounce handle federal antitrust lawsuits. The state attorney clear sue on the states behalf so as to rectify the wrong practices. More everyplace, apart from compensating the federal and local governments, the state govern ment leave also be compensated in case a company is guilty of a violation.Monopoly great power entails increasing or reducing prices of commodities or services for an unknown period without fearing to be undersold by those who can provide alternative services or goods. The Mega Computer Chip Manufacturer has monopoly power, and they use it. MCCM has policies that impose preventative burdens or costs on Original Equipment Manufacturers, who are the manufacturers of computers, and who fit in the chips in their computers. The MCCMs monopoly power makes them have an effect on OEMs prices since they can lower or increase the price of the chips and OEM cannot. Additionally, MCCM can inform OEM the number of chips they can use, pay them so that they do not use their competitors chips, and delay their competitors chips use (Cheeseman, 2011).A method of dispute resolution should be included in the contract. This will be ministrant in the event of a disagreement (Cheeseman, 2011). Alterna tive dispute resolution methods should be adopted over courts. This is because it is more flexible, cost-effective, and faster than court trials.The resolution will take place in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota has the potential of handling court cases. In case the contract uses a court as a method of dispute resolution, the court in Minnesota can provide for a distinct jurisdiction or general jurisdiction.