Syufy's entry into the Las Vegas market caused a stir, precipitating a titanic bidding war.1
KOZINSKI’S OWN NOTE:
In Part 3 of the opinion, the majority, in footnote 21, construes my citation of a prior case involving Syufy Enterprises, in which Syufy was found to be a monopolist, as a suggestion on my part that such a finding of prior monopolistic action, in and of itself, justified the initiation of this action. That was not my intent. The citation of the case in question, Syufy Enterprises v. American Multicinema, Inc., 793 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1986), was for the purpose of demonstrating that Syufy, who spent almost 5 million dollars in cash in purchasing all of his competitors, was not a “paper tiger” as suggested by the majority.
In footnote 22, the majority also contends that the finding of monopolistic actions by Syufy in the San Jose major feature films market was reversed by the Ninth Circuit in American Multicinema for insufficient evidence. To the contrary, this jury finding was found to have been supported by substantial evidence. At page 996 of American Multicinema, the court stated: “In conclusion, we hold that there is substantial evidence to support a jury verdict in favor of AMC on its first Section 2 monopolization theory; that Syufy monopolized the market for the exhibition of industry anticipated top-grossing films in the San Jose area.”
To help improve the meaning of these lyrics, visit "U.S. v Syufy" by Judge Kozinski and leave a comment on the lyrics box