The answer is (surprise!) “yes.”
There are a number of ways in which antitrust law is relevant to emerging and non-dominant companies. Those firms may:
- Need to deal with the dominant firms in their markets, including by (i) responding to threats or actions by dominant firms to foreclose access to products, services or markets, or (ii) negotiating to acquire or maintain access to needed IP;
- Need access to standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) and to understand their rights to and under FRAND licenses;
- Want to exploit and license their own IP and put restrictions on its use without triggering antitrust issues;
- Want to collaborate with other firms – including (dominant) competitors – in producing products or delivering services (i.e., entering into joint ventures);
- Want to merge with, acquire, or be acquired by another firm, including a dominant one;
- Want to impose vertical price or non-price restraints, or offer different customers, dealers or distributors different prices; or
- Need to respond to a government merger or conduct investigation as a third party.
All of the above issues (and more) require the consideration of antitrust law. This is not to say that, for example, every complaint by an emerging firm against a dominant firm is the nucleus of a valid antitrust claim. There are many considerations – including whether there is harm to competition, whether a party has antitrust standing, and the like – and often there is no claim, just the rough-and-tumble of normal business competition. But it’s always helpful to understand the legal landscape, and to consider whether Congress and the courts have struck the appropriate balance between robust competition and truly exclusionary conduct. And on the defensive end, it’s always a good idea to understand how far you can push restraints.