Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LITTON SYS. v. AT&T

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


October 1, 1981;

LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs; against AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants; NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, et al., Counterclaimants, against LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Counterdefendants; LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, against SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CONNER

OPINION AND ORDER [October 1, 1981]

CONNER, D.J.:

 Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief is denied for the following reasons:

 1. Plaintiffs withdrew from the telephone terminal equipment business about 1976 and have repeatedly declared that they do not intend to re-enter that business.

 2. Defendants' past conduct which the jury found to be anticompetitive or predatory is unlikely to be repeated because defendants' previous tariffs providing that terminal equipment provided by others could be connected to defendants' telephone network only through an interface device supplied and maintained by defendants have been supplanted by new tariffs permitting any equipment which has been certified as meeting prescribed specifications to be connected without an interface device.

 3. Plaintiffs cite no evidence of threat or likelihood of other improper conduct of defendants, for example, retaliating for the prosecution of this action by refusing to purchase electronic components from plaintiffs, or anticompetitive practices directed against plaintiffs' airport control tower communication systems business.

 4. Any attempt by defendants to pass along to their customers the costs of this action, including the damages awarded against them, is a matter for consideration, at least in the first instance, by the various regulatory agencies responsible for approval of defendants' rate structures.

 SO ORDERED.

 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER [October 5, 1981]

 CONNER, D.J.:

 Supplementing the Court's Order dated September 28, 1981, denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict rendered June 29, 1981, the Court also denies, nunc pro tunc, defendants' alternative motion for a new trial.

 SO ORDERED.

19811001

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.