Opinion ID: 764884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Donald Newhouse

Text: 105 AD/SAT alleges that Donald Newhouse -- as a member of the AP board of directors and chairman of the NAA board of directors during the planning, approval, and implementation of AdSEND -- was at the center of the alleged conspiracies to boycott AD/SAT and allow AdSEND to monopolize the ad delivery market. Though it is true that Newhouse, who is also the president and part owner of Advance, had the opportunity to join in a conspiracy with the AP to destroy competition in the ad delivery market, it is also true that, like the newspaper defendants, the NAA, and the NNN, Newhouse had no rational motive to do so. As both a newspaper owner and chairman of the NAA, a primary interest for Newhouse is making newspapers a more attractive medium for advertisers. As the District Court noted, Encouraging and assisting AP in its effort to enter the delivery market is certainly consistent with this interest[,] while [j]oining a conspiracy to refuse to deal with AD/SAT in an effort to drive it out of business is not. AD/SAT II, 920 F. Supp. at 1316. 106 Furthermore, none of the evidence submitted by AD/SAT tends to exclude the possibility that Newhouse was acting in an independent effort to further the interests of his own newspapers and the organization he represented, the NAA. AD/SAT points to a letter, dated August 2, 1993, to AP president Louis Boccardi, in which Newhouse stated that the AP should move quickly if it planned to get into the ad delivery business because there is a window of opportunity now which AdSat [sic] might close if too much time goes by. Far from demonstrating the existence of a conscious commitment to an unlawful scheme, this statement encourages competition by urging the AP to act quickly before AD/SAT forecloses competition. AD/SAT also asserts that Newhouse was instrumental in securing the NAA's exclusive support for AP's AdSEND. As discussed below, the NAA never endorsed AdSEND to the exclusion of other firms involved in the electronic ad delivery market. 107 Nor is the fact that Newhouse introduced the AdSEND service to several major advertisers indicative of an unlawful conspiracy. With a position on the board of the AP and holding the view that AdSEND was a good product of general benefit to the newspaper industry, Newhouse had entirely legitimate reasons for promoting AdSEND. Moreover, introducing a new competitor to a market's customers is conduct which the antitrust laws are designed to protect. AD/SAT II, 920 F. Supp at 1317. 108 AD/SAT relies heavily on Newhouse's retirement speech at the April 1994 NAA convention, which it contends constituted an invitation to boycott AD/SAT and to assist AdSEND's effort to monopolize the market for ad delivery. In the speech, Newhouse encouraged NAA members to work with the Associated Press and help our cooperative perfect its ability to transmit ads digitally from the advertisers' computer to our computer. Newhouse also stated that NAA is working with the Associated Press as AP develops a computer to computer advertising transmission system which will . . . remove a barrier to the use of newspapers. Newhouse stressed the importance of collective action within the newspaper industry. 109 Newhouse's statements simply do not support the inference that AD/SAT proposes. Perhaps most telling is the fact that AD/SAT was never mentioned during the speech. AD/SAT's attempt to construe the statement, We must not let our competitors have the advantage of creating the playing field and controlling the gateway, as a reference to AD/SAT is unavailing. The context of this statement strongly suggests that Newhouse was not referring to any deliverers of ads, much less AD/SAT in particular, but to the array of entities vying to develop new technologies to gather and deliver news. 110 In sum, the evidence provided by AD/SAT would not permit a reasonable juror to infer that the actions of Newhouse in support of the AP's development and marketing of AdSEND constituted participation in a concerted refusal to deal with AD/SAT in restraint of trade.