The Plaintiffs’ experts do not answer this question. The Individual Plaintiffs acknowledge interdependence but persist by arguing that Hershey, in particular, acted against its self-interest by following Mars’s price increases rather than maintaining lower prices to increase its market share. For support, the Individual Plaintiffs point to Hershey’s favorable cost positions in 2002 relative to its rivals as well as Mars’s decision not to follow Hershey’s 2001 price increase on packaged candy, a decision which led to Mars increasing its market share. Deciding not to follow a price increase initiated by a rival is just one rational response that an oligopolist can take, a fact acknowledged by economists, including the Individual Plaintiffs’ economic expert, Dr. Vellturo. J.A. 2187 (<HOLDING>); 6 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp,
recognizing the wide range of competitive results in oligopolistic markets recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11 recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge