Wisconsin Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in cases of per se violation tying agreements. A per se violation tying agreement refers to a situation where one party (the tying firm) conditions the sale or provision of a particular product or service (the tied product) on the purchase of another distinct product or service from that same company. Such agreements are generally presumed to be anti-competitive and in violation of antitrust laws. In this section, the Wisconsin jury instruction focuses on the defendant's defense of justification, which means the defendant must provide a valid reason or justification for engaging in the tying agreement. The instruction helps the jury understand the elements and factors that may influence their decision in evaluating whether the defense of justification is valid in the case. Some relevant keywords related to this instruction include: 1. Per se violation: Relates to the automatic presumption that a tying agreement is anti-competitive and violates antitrust laws without requiring a detailed analysis of its actual effects on competition. 2. Tying agreement: Refers to the practice of one party conditioning the sale or provision of a tied product on the purchase of another product or service. 3. Defense of justification: Indicates the defendant's attempt to provide a valid reason for engaging in the tying agreement, thus justifying its actions. 4. Antitrust laws: Refers to the body of legislation that seeks to promote and protect fair competition in the marketplace, preventing anti-competitive practices that harm consumers and other businesses. 5. Jury instruction: Communication provided by the court to guide the jury's deliberations and understanding of the applicable law and evidence presented in a case. Different types or variations of Wisconsin Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification may include instructions specific to different industries or markets to account for variations in the effects of tying agreements in those sectors. Additionally, variations can arise based on different factual scenarios presented in individual cases, such as the specifics of the tied product or services involved, the market dynamics, and the defendant's justifications presented.
Wisconsin Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in cases of per se violation tying agreements. A per se violation tying agreement refers to a situation where one party (the tying firm) conditions the sale or provision of a particular product or service (the tied product) on the purchase of another distinct product or service from that same company. Such agreements are generally presumed to be anti-competitive and in violation of antitrust laws. In this section, the Wisconsin jury instruction focuses on the defendant's defense of justification, which means the defendant must provide a valid reason or justification for engaging in the tying agreement. The instruction helps the jury understand the elements and factors that may influence their decision in evaluating whether the defense of justification is valid in the case. Some relevant keywords related to this instruction include: 1. Per se violation: Relates to the automatic presumption that a tying agreement is anti-competitive and violates antitrust laws without requiring a detailed analysis of its actual effects on competition. 2. Tying agreement: Refers to the practice of one party conditioning the sale or provision of a tied product on the purchase of another product or service. 3. Defense of justification: Indicates the defendant's attempt to provide a valid reason for engaging in the tying agreement, thus justifying its actions. 4. Antitrust laws: Refers to the body of legislation that seeks to promote and protect fair competition in the marketplace, preventing anti-competitive practices that harm consumers and other businesses. 5. Jury instruction: Communication provided by the court to guide the jury's deliberations and understanding of the applicable law and evidence presented in a case. Different types or variations of Wisconsin Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification may include instructions specific to different industries or markets to account for variations in the effects of tying agreements in those sectors. Additionally, variations can arise based on different factual scenarios presented in individual cases, such as the specifics of the tied product or services involved, the market dynamics, and the defendant's justifications presented.
