DuPont Response on Monopoly Argument
DuPont believed that the growth strategy was intricate and sophisticated with the growth aimed at achieving legitimate goals and not to harm competition within the industry as had been argued. Besides, DuPont claimed that some of its decisions aimed at pursuing business objectives that were independent and valid. Therefore, some of its pricing decisions were determined by factors that it had no control over such as the market forces including demand. It, however, disputed the notion that its actions aimed at creating a capacity surplus both to other producers and to itself. Besides, it was in the best interest of the company to serve better its stockholders by internalizing the competitive advantages in the construction industry in the production of titanium dioxide. In the case of high projection of prices by the company with the emergence of DeLisle, it responded by showing supporting documents indicating that the company’s executive committee had made a projection of in the product’s prices in the future. DuPont denied the allegations by FTC that it built a titanium capacity in advance due to demand. It argued that DeLisle was constructed to gain both the community support and approval by the government and not due to demand as contended. The company denied the allegations that all its actions were aimed to gain competitive advantage and thus be a monopolist in the industry.
Results of the Monopoly Arguments
The commission hearing the case between DuPont and FTC found that there was no malicious motive by the DuPont Company’s actions. Therefore, the commission dismissed the case. It had a resultant effect on various companies with some of the companies that were initially competing with DuPont exiting the industry. Some of the companies exited through mergers while some exited through full acquisition by other more established companies. Besides, DuPont gained a competitive advantage and had significant growth in consecutive years. Also, the DuPont decision set a stage for the emergence of similar cases. One notable thing learned from the matter is that even though a suit might have proper and reasonable evidence, the situation might lack a precedential value as in the case between DuPont and FTC.
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?