Perreault−McCarthy: Basic
Marketing: A
Global−Managerial
Approach, 14/eBack Matter Notes © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2002762 Notes
1994, pp. 347–60; Alan Morrison, “The Role of Litigation in Consumer
Protection,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs,Winter, 1991, pp. 209–20;
William K. Darley and Denise M. Johnson, “Cross-National Comparison
of Consumer Attitudes Toward Consumerism in Four Developing Coun-
tries,” Journal of Consumer Affairs,Summer 1993, pp. 37–54.
22.For more on Beech-Nut, see “What Led Beech-Nut Down the
Road to Disgrace,” Business Week,February 22, 1988, pp. 124–28. See
also David A. Balto, “Emerging Antitrust Issues in Electronic Com-
merce,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Fall 2000, pp. 277–87;
Shelby D. Hunt, “Competition as an Evolutionary Process and Antitrust
Policy,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Spring 2001, Vol. 20, 1,
pp.15–27; “Europe: A Different Take on Antitrust,” Business Week,June
25, 2001, p. 40; “Trustbusting’s Top Cop,” Business Week,April 30, 2001,
pp. 88–89; “A Different Kind of Trustbuster,” Business Week,April 16,
2001, pp. 66–68; “Antitrust: Laying the Tracks a Bit to the Right,” Busi-
ness Week,February 12, 2001, p. 36; “Is the FTC Defending Goliath?”
Business Week,December 18, 2000, pp. 160–62; “How a Whistle-Blower
Spurred Pricing Case Involving Drug Makers,” The Wall Street Journal,
May 12, 2000, p. A1ff.; “Invasion of the Cartel Cops,” Business Week,
May 8, 2000, pp. 130–32; “By Any Other Name, a Monopoly.Com,”
Business Week,April 19, 1999, p. 154; “A Little Internet Firm Got a Big
Monopoly; Is That Such a Bad Thing?” The Wall Street Journal,October
8, 1998, p. A1ff.; “In Archer-Daniels Saga, Now the Executives Face
Trial,” The Wall Street Journal,July 9, 1998, p. B10; “The FTC’s Eager
Sheriff,” Business Week,July 6, 1998, pp. 65–66; Gregory T. Gundlach,
“Exchange Relationships and the Efficiency Interests of the Law,” Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, Fall 1996, pp. 185–202; Tara J. Schleicher,
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Post-Chicago Antitrust Theory in
Eastman Kodak V. Image Technical Services: Implications for Marketing
Practice,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Fall 1997, pp. 310–18;
Ann C. Morales, “Corporate Officer Liability: FTC Expands Its Remedial
Reach Over Deceptive Marketing Practices,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Spring 1998, pp. 163–64; Jef I. Richards, “Legal Pot-
holes on the Information Superhighway,” Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, Fall 1997, pp. 319–26; Dan A. Fuller and Debra L. Scammon,
“Newly Evolving Organizational Structures in the Health Care Industry:
Principles of Antitrust Enforcement and Implications for Marketing,”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Spring 1996, pp. 128–35; G. S.
Erickson, “Export Controls: Marketing Implications of Public Policy
Choices,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Spring 1997, pp. 83–92;
Thomas A. Hemphill, “The New Era of Business Regulation,” Business
Horizons, July–August 1996, pp. 26–30; Rita M. Cain, “Recent Develop-
ments in Telemarketing Regulation,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
Spring 1996, pp. 135–41; Charles S. Gulas, “Marketing Strategies for
Services: Globalization, Client-Orientation, Deregulation,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Spring 1996, pp. 178–79; Joan T. A.
Gabel, “Lanham Act Not Limited to Advertisements Aimed at the Ulti-
mate Consumer,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Spring
1997, p.178. See also Louis W. Stern and Thomas L. Eovaldi, Legal
Aspects of Marketing Strategy: Antitrust and Consumer Protection Issues
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984).
23.For more on Firestone, see Chapter 9, footnote #13. For more on
auto safety, see “Smash, Bang, Crunch, Screech—Wow, What a Car!” The
Wall Street Journal,April 13, 2001, p. B1ff.; “Safety First,” Newsweek,
October 30, 2000, pp. 56–59; “Formula Predicts Rollover Risk,” USA
Today, July 17, 2000, p. 1Bff.; “New Clan of Crash Dummies Ready for
Lab Mayhem,” USA Today, July 5, 2000, p. 6B; “The Safest Cars? It’s in
the Bag,” The Wall Street Journal,May 12, 2000, p. W1; “The Side Air
Bag Controversy: No Safety Regulations Mean Risk Levels Differ by
Design,” USA Today, February 11, 1999, p. 1Bff.; For more on food and
drug safety, see “Pills on a Pedestal,” USA Today, February 6, 2001, p.
1Dff.; “Move to Import Medicines: Boon or Boondoggle?” The Wall Street
Journal,October 13, 2000, p. B1ff.; “Complex Drug Labels Bury Safety
Messages,” USA Today, May 3, 2000, p. 1Aff.; “Many Medicines Prove
Potent for Years Past Their Expiration Dates,” The Wall Street Journal,
March 28, 2000, p. A1ff.; “Splitting Hairs on Supplement Claims,” The
Wall Street Journal,February 22, 2000, p. B1ff.; Foul-Ups by Asthma-Drug
Maker Draw FDA Fire,” The Wall Street Journal,January 28, 2000, p. B1ff.;
“In Boom for Home Drug Tests, One Runs Afoul of FDA,” The Wall Street
Journal,August 24, 1999, p. B1ff.; “Supplement or Additive? Issue Is on
FDA’s Plate,” USA Today, November 4, 1998, p. 1Bff.; “Rush to Judg-
ment? Policy Speeds Approvals, but Some Say It’s Risky,” USA Today,
July 10, 1998, p. 1Aff.; “Meat Safety: Critics Say New Regulations Won’t
Work,” USA Today,October 8, 1997, p. 1Aff.; “Fine Print in Drug Ads
Sparks a Debate,” The Wall Street Journal,April 1, 1997, p. B1ff.
24.“Microsoft: New Rules of the Road,” Business Week,July 16, 2001,
pp. 34–36; “No Split but Microsoft’s a Monopolist,” Ti m e, July 9, 2001,
pp. 36–38; “A Cloud Lifted,” Newsweek, July 9, 2001, pp. 38–39; “Living
in Microsoft’s Shadow,” The Wall Street Journal,July 2, 2001, p. B1ff.;
“They’re Here, They’re Feared, So Get Used to It,” The Wall Street Jour-
nal,July 2, 2001, p. B1ff.; “Microsoft Scores a Big Legal Victory,” The
Wall Street Journal,June 29, 2001, p. B1ff.; “Microsoft: Let the Negotia-
tions Begin,” USA Today, June 29, 2001, p. 1Bff.; “Are Antitrust Laws
Obsolete in the New Economy?” Investor’s Business Daily, April 16, 2001,
p. A6; “Judging Jackson,” Ecompany, April 2001, p. 40ff.; “Appeal Pro-
ceedings Could Embolden Microsoft,” The Wall Street Journal,March 2,
2001, p. B1ff.; “Microsoft Blames Lower Judge’s Bias for Harsh Remedy,”
Investor’s Business Daily, February 28, 2001, p. A6; “The Wind Shifts for
Microsoft,” Business Week,February 12, 2001, pp. 93–94; “Damn the
Torpedoes! Full Speed Ahead,” Fortune, July 10, 2000, pp. 98–110; “The
Great Antitrust Debate,” Business Week,June 26, 2000, pp. 40–42;
“Microsoft’s Six Fatal Errors,” Newsweek, June 19, 2000, pp. 22–32; “For
Policy Makers, Microsoft Suggests Need to Recast Models,” The Wall
Street Journal,June 9, 2000, p. A1ff.; “Keeping on Course in a Crisis,”
The Wall Street Journal,June 9, 2000, p. B1ff.; “Judge’s Breakup Order
Stands to Transform Microsoft, Its Industry,” The Wall Street Journal,June
8, 2000, p. A1ff.; “For Antitrust Judge, Trust, or Lack of It, Really Was
the Issue,” The Wall Street Journal,June 8, 2000, p. A1ff.; “Microsoft
Awaits a New Hand,” USA Today, June 8, 2000, p. 1Bff.; “A Breakup
Primer for Microsoft?” The Wall Street Journal,June 6, 2000, p. B1ff.;
“Unintended Consequences,” The Wall Street Journal,June 2, 2000, p.
B1ff.; “Microsoft’s All-Out Counterattack,” Business Week,May 15,
2000, p. 103–106; “Antitrust for the Digital Age,” Business Week,May
15, 2000, pp. 46–48; “Microsoft’s Reply: We Didn’t Do It, and We
Promise Not to Do It Again,” Investor’s Business Daily, May 11, 2000, p.
A1; “Microsoft Proposes Curbs that Open Windows a Crack,” USA
Today, May 11, 2000, p. 1Bff.; “Looking through Microsoft’s Window,”
The Wall Street Journal,May 1, 2000, p. B1ff.; “Facing Breakup, Gates to
Take Case to People,” USA Today, May 1, 2000, p. 1Bff.; “Technology
Will Test a Washington Culture Born in Industrial Age,” The Wall Street
Journal,May 1, 2000, p. A1ff.; “Creating Two Behemoths?” The Wall
Street Journal,April 28, 2000, p. B1ff.; “A Tricky Element in the
Antitrust Battle: Microsoft’s Server Tactics,” The Wall Street Journal,
April 19, 2000, p. B1ff.; “The ‘Beast of Redmond’ Defanged?” The Wall
Street Journal,April 5, 2000, p. B1ff.; “Microsoft Judge Faces Demands of
Market and of Monopoly Law,” The Wall Street Journal,April 4, 2000, p.
A1ff.; “Microsoft Ruling Open to Appeal,” USA Today, April 4, 2000, p.
1Bff.; “Does a Breakup Make Sense?” Business Week,November 22, 1999,
pp. 38–50; “Microsoft Enjoys Monopoly Power,” Ti m e, November 15,
1999, pp. 60–69; “Bill Takes It on the Chin,” Newsweek, November 15,
1999, pp. 52–56; “Microsoft Is Found to Be Predatory Monopolist,” The
Wall Street Journal,November 8, 1999, p. A3ff.; “Knowing the ABCs of
the Antitrust Case against Microsoft,” The Wall Street Journal,October
30, 1997, p. B1.
25.“Marketing Law: A Marketer’s Guide to Alphabet Soup,” Business
Marketing,January 1990, pp. 56–58; Ray O. Werner, “Marketing and the
Supreme Court in Transition, 1982–1984,” Journal of Marketing,Summer
1985, pp. 97–105; Ray O. Werner, “Marketing and the United States
Supreme Court, 1975–1981,” Journal of Marketing,Spring 1982, pp.
73–81; Dorothy Cohen, “Trademark Strategy,” Journal of Marketing,Jan-
uary 1986, pp. 61–74.
26.“Nike Introduces Women-Only Stores,” AdAge Global, June 2001,
p. 5; “Women Take Stage in Beer Ads,” USA Today, April 30, 2001, p.
5B; “The Changing Face of Super Sunday,” USA Today, January 25,