Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/302991/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-00521-11375
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 08:36:16
Document Index: 88588943

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 1', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16']

US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00521-11375 | Judgment (Law) | Competition Law
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGEMENTS 1. The United States files this Memorandum to outline the procedures of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) (the "APPA"), that must be followed before the Court may enter the proposed Final Judgment that would resolve the allegations against Defendant Wind River Systems, Inc. (“Wind River”) in the civil antitrust suit filed today by the United States. The APPA applies only to antitrust cases brought by the United States. 2. The United States’ Complaint alleges that Defendants The MathWorks, Inc. (“The MathWorks”) and Wind River entered into an agreement that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Today, the United States and Wind River filed a Stipulation and Order and a proposed Final Judgment that would resolve the allegations in the Complaint against Wind River. The United States will shortly file a Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment, pursuant to the APPA. 15 U.S.C. § 16(b).
3. In the Stipulation and Order, Wind River agrees to abide by and comply with all terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment pending its entry, which cannot occur until after compliance with the requirements of the APPA. 4. The APPA requires the United States to publish the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, and to publish newspaper notices of the proposed Final Judgment 60 days prior to entry of the Final Judgment. The newspaper notices will inform members of the public that they may submit comments about the Final Judgment to the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) & (c). The United States will consider any comments it receives, respond to them, and publish the comments and responses in the Federal Register. 15 U.S.C. § 16(d). 5. Not later than ten days after the filing of the proposed Final Judgment, Wind River must file with the Court a description of any communications, other than communications solely by Wind River’s counsel of record solely with the U.S. Department of Justice, by or on behalf of Wind River with the United States concerning matters relevant to the Final Judgment. Before entry of the proposed Final Judgment, Wind River must certify to the Court that they have complied with this disclosure requirement. 15 U.S.C. § 16(g). 6. Pursuant to the APPA, at the expiration of the public comment period, the United States will file with the Court any comments that it receives, its responses, and a Motion For Entry of the Final Judgment, unless it withdraws its consent to entry of the Final Judgment pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation. 15 U.S.C. § 16(d).
may enter the Final Judgment with or without further hearing, if the Court determines that entry is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)-(f). Dated: June 21, 2002 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patricia A. Brink J. Roberto Hizon Kenneth W. Gaul James J. Tierney Kevin Yingling Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Networks & Technology Section 600 E Street, N.W., Suite 9500 Washington D.C. 20530 Tel: 202/307-6200 Fax: 202/616-8544 PAUL J. McNULTY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Richard Parker Assistant United States Attorney VSB No. 44751 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: 703/299-3700
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the United States’ Memorandum Regarding Procedures for Entry of Final Judgments was served by fax and U.S. Mail on the following counsel this 21st day of June, 2002: Counsel for Wind River, Inc. Richard L. Rosen Arnold & Porter 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1206 Tel: 202/942-5499 Fax: 202/942-5999 Counsel for The MathWorks, Inc. Thane D. Scott, Esq. Palmer & Dodge, LLP 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7613 Tel: 617/239-0154 Fax: 617/227-4420 /s/ James J. Tierney
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00521-11375 by legalmattersEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00564-11971by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01598-212197by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00840-200873by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00824-200675by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01523-210102by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02064-221401by legalmatters00322-0870by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01320-205967by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01658-213918by legalmattersUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 700by Justia.comUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01486-2124by legalmatters8154_1995-1999by FRASER: Federal Reserve ArchiveTopps Chewing Gum, Inc. v. Fleer Corporation, Major League Baseball Players Association, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, 799 F.2d 851, 2d Cir. (1986)by Scribd Government DocsUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01219-204495by legalmatters00113-0303by legalmatters00084-0198by legalmattersGulfstream III Associates, Inc., Gulfstream IV Associates, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Delaware Corp. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Georgia Corp. Gulfstream American Corporation Atlantic Aviation Corporation Cessna Aircraft Company Gates Learjet Corporation British Aerospace, Inc. Canadair Challenger, Inc. Mitsubishi Aircraft International Inc. Cessna Aircraft Company in No. 91-5932. Gulfstream III Associates Inc., Gulfstream IV Associates, Inc., in No. 91-5965, 995 F.2d 425, 3rd Cir. (1993)by Scribd Government DocsAlvord-Polk, Inc. American Blind Factory, Inc. Delta Paint and Wallpaper Supply Co., Inc. Fairman Wallpaper and Paint Company Frank R. Yocum, T/a Frank R. Yocum & Sons Wallpaper Co. Harry's Wallpaper, Inc. Lancaster Carpet Market, Inc. Marvin Kolsky, T/a Headquarters Windows & Walls Silver Wallpaper & Paint Co., Inc. Yankee Wallcoverings, Inc. v. F. Schumacher & Co. The National Decorating Products Association, Inc., 37 F.3d 996, 3rd Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government Docs00270-0720by legalmattersJames Williams, Individually and D/B/A Gmp Company, and Turbine Alloy Company v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 694 F.2d 300, 3rd Cir. (1982)by Scribd Government DocsGerald A. Schroeder and Clara Johnson Schroeder v. State of Illinois, Bernard J. Korzen, County Treasurer of Cook County, Trustees of Schools of Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois, for the Use and Benefit of Board of Education, School District 57, Cook County, Illinois, Wilbert J. J. Wahler and Daniel W. Pecyna, 354 F.2d 561, 3rd Cir. (1966)by Scribd Government DocsFive Reasons Why Health Care Quality Researchby cizmickanitaNotice: Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgmentby Justia.comNotice: National cooperative research notifications: ANSI Accredited Standards Committee C136by Justia.comNotice: Pollution control; consent judgments: ASARCO LLC et al.by Justia.comRobert L. Bense v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., 683 F.2d 718, 2d Cir. (1982)by Scribd Government DocsPerkins v. Nelson, 10th Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsLiddy v. Shoot et al - Document No. 7by Justia.comSimilar to US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00521-11375US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00564-11971US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01598-212197US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00840-200873US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00824-200675US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01523-210102US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02064-22140100322-0870US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01320-205967US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01658-213918UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 700US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01486-21248154_1995-1999Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v. Fleer Corporation, Major League Baseball Players Association, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant, 799 F.2d 851, 2d Cir. (1986)US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01219-20449500113-030300084-0198Gulfstream III Associates, Inc., Gulfstream IV Associates, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Delaware Corp. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a Georgia Corp. Gulfstream American Corporation Atlantic Aviation Corporation Cessna Aircraft Company Gates Learjet Corporation British Aerospace, Inc. Canadair Challenger, Inc. Mitsubishi Aircraft International Inc. Cessna Aircraft Company in No. 91-5932. Gulfstream III Associates Inc., Gulfstream IV Associates, Inc., in No. 91-5965, 995 F.2d 425, 3rd Cir. (1993)Alvord-Polk, Inc. American Blind Factory, Inc. Delta Paint and Wallpaper Supply Co., Inc. Fairman Wallpaper and Paint Company Frank R. Yocum, T/a Frank R. Yocum & Sons Wallpaper Co. Harry's Wallpaper, Inc. Lancaster Carpet Market, Inc. Marvin Kolsky, T/a Headquarters Windows & Walls Silver Wallpaper & Paint Co., Inc. Yankee Wallcoverings, Inc. v. F. Schumacher & Co. The National Decorating Products Association, Inc., 37 F.3d 996, 3rd Cir. (1994)00270-0720James Williams, Individually and D/B/A Gmp Company, and Turbine Alloy Company v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 694 F.2d 300, 3rd Cir. (1982)Gerald A. Schroeder and Clara Johnson Schroeder v. State of Illinois, Bernard J. Korzen, County Treasurer of Cook County, Trustees of Schools of Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois, for the Use and Benefit of Board of Education, School District 57, Cook County, Illinois, Wilbert J. J. Wahler and Daniel W. Pecyna, 354 F.2d 561, 3rd Cir. (1966)Five Reasons Why Health Care Quality ResearchNoticeNoticeNoticeRobert L. Bense v. Interstate Battery System of America, Inc., 683 F.2d 718, 2d Cir. (1982)Perkins v. Nelson, 10th Cir. (2001)Liddy v. Shoot et al - Document No. 7Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Assn. Of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 10th Cir. (1989)Fogle v. Blake - Document No. 4US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00521-11375