## Facts

- AM International, Inc. (AMI) manufactured and serviced Multigraphics printing equipment; Abcor Corporation (Abcor), founded by former AMI technician James G. Kibler, Sr., serviced and repaired AMI machines in the Washington, D.C. area.
- After Kibler left AMI in 1973, Abcor hired multiple AMI employees and became a leading independent service provider for AMI machines in the local market.
- In the Washington area, there were about 3,000 Multigraphics machines; roughly 2,200 were serviced in-house by owners, and of the remaining 800 machines, Abcor serviced about 400, AMI about 200, and other competitors about 200.
- In 1987, AMI negotiated to purchase Abcor but ultimately ended negotiations and chose to compete for increased market share instead.
- Abcor alleged AMI then pursued an anticompetitive campaign to eliminate Abcor, including offering low-priced service contracts aimed at Abcor’s customers and engaging in other aggressive competitive tactics (such as intensified solicitation of customers, price cutting, and recruitment activity).
- AMI characterized its actions as lawful efforts to compete on the merits in a market with multiple service options.

## Issues

1. Whether Abcor produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on the elements of § 2 attempted monopolization (anticompetitive conduct, specific intent to monopolize, and dangerous probability of success).
2. Whether summary judgment for AMI was proper given the record evidence of AMI’s post-negotiation competitive conduct.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for AMI.
- The court held the record raised no material issue of fact supporting attempted monopolization.
- The court concluded AMI’s conduct reflected aggressive competition rather than predatory or exclusionary conduct prohibited by § 2.
- The court found Abcor’s evidence did not support a reasonable inference of specific intent to monopolize.
- The market structure and service alternatives did not show a dangerous probability that AMI could achieve monopoly power in the relevant service market.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2 requires proof of (1) predatory or anticompetitive conduct, (2) specific intent to monopolize, and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in a relevant market.
- At summary judgment, a plaintiff must present evidence permitting a reasonable factfinder to infer each element; conclusory characterizations of “schemes” are insufficient without supporting facts.
- Conduct consistent with competition on the merits—such as seeking customers, lowering prices absent proof of below-cost predation, and competing for market share—does not alone establish § 2 liability.
- Antitrust law targets harm to the competitive process, not merely harm to an individual competitor.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Abcor’s evidence showed, at most, intensified rivalry after failed acquisition talks, not a triable § 2 attempted monopolization claim, and therefore affirmed summary judgment for AMI.


Abcor Corp. v. AM Int’l, Inc., 916 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1990)