\n<\/p>\n
So, what do artificial teeth have to do with the Department of Justice\u2019s massive lawsuit against Apple? Well, they may be one of the reasons why the DOJ decided to file its lawsuit in the state of New Jersey \u2014 instead of, say, Virginia or Washington, DC, like it did for Google and Microsoft.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The DOJ previously filed \u2014 and won \u2014 a similar antitrust case against a company that makes fake teeth in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In an interview with The Verge<\/em>, William Kovacic, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission and a professor at the George Washington University Law School, explains that \u201cthe Third Circuit is a jurisdiction with some pretty good law for plaintiffs on monopolization issues.\u201d He points to the DOJ\u2019s 2004 antitrust lawsuit<\/a> against Dentsply, a dental supply company that manufactures fake teeth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIt was a case \u2014 low tech \u2014 that involved dentures,\u201d Kovacic says. \u201cBut they [the DOJ] won and with an opinion that lays out a view of the law that\u2019s going to be good for them here.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At the time, the DOJ accused Dentsply of maintaining a monopoly in the artificial teeth business. Dentsply made and sold artificial teeth to dealers, who then sold them to dental laboratories to make dentures. But, as outlined in the lawsuit, Dentsply adopted a policy that blocked authorized dealers from adding \u201cfurther tooth lines to their product offering.\u201d This prevented dealers from selling other brands of artificial teeth to laboratories, allowing Dentsply to \u201cexclude competitors from the dealers\u2019 network.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n While a district court initially ruled in Dentsply\u2019s favor, the Third Circuit reversed this decision and found that the company\u2019s \u201cgrip on its 23 authorized dealers effectively choked off the market for artificial teeth, leaving only a small sliver for competitors.\u201d Since the DOJ emerged victorious in this particular case, it may think it\u2019ll have an advantage against Apple here.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe [Dentsply] case focuses very much on the effort by the dominant firm to use exclusive dealing arrangements to prevent rivals from getting inputs they need to succeed,\u201d Kovacic says. \u201cIt\u2019s a principle that the DC Circuit accepted and applied in the Microsoft monopolization case.\u201d The DOJ isn\u2019t hiding the fact<\/a> that it built much of its case on its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, either.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Teeth may not be the only<\/em> reason why the DOJ chose a New Jersey District Court as its venue. The Verge<\/em> also spoke with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is one of the 16 attorneys general involved in the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit. While Bonta says he wasn\u2019t heavily involved in choosing the venue since the DOJ was mostly in charge of that decision, he does have some understanding of why the DOJ picked New Jersey \u2014 and it\u2019s arguably a little less exciting than fake teeth.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI understand that Samsung is headquartered there [New Jersey], and they are impacted by the anticompetitive conduct and exclusionary conduct of Apple,\u201d Bonta says. The lawsuit lists both Samsung and Google as the two \u201cmeaningful competitors\u201d to Apple in the premium smartphone market and specifically points out that Samsung\u2019s US headquarters are \u201clocated in this district.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n