Glen Holly Entertainment, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Wilson, J.
ORDER DISMISSING ANTITRUST CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
I. INTRODUCTION
As is so often the case in antitrust law, a deceptively simple set of facts forces the Court to confront a doctrinal quagmire. This case requires the Court to determine whether a rental firm, owning and renting only one type of video editing system, suffers antitrust injury if the only two manu facturers of video editing systems conspire to discontinue this particular type of video editing system and thereby render the rental firm’s current inventory obsolete and undesirable.
Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs injury derives from the anti-competitive nature of the Defendants’ alleged conduct, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs injury is not the sort of harm that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. In addition, Plaintiffs harm is suffered in a different market than the market in which Defendants allegedly conspired. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated “antitrust injury” and therefore fails to state a claim. The Court will therefore DISMISS the current antitrust claims with leave to amend.