3TAPS, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM Case No. CV-12 ...

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526the failures of other companies—such as Yahoo! Pipes—to successfully facilitate third partydevelopers from entering the Relevant Market and offering competitive search tools—such asFlippity.232. craigslist’s willful and wrongful maintenance and/or extension of its monopolypower (or its attempt to monopolize) is not the result of growth and development as a result ofinnovation, business acumen, or by virtue of offering a superior product. Rather, it is a directconsequence of craigslist’s intentional, exclusionary conduct in connection with its anticompetitivescheme.behavior.233. There is no efficiency enhancing, procompetitive justification for craigslist’s234. craigslist’s anticompetitive scheme alleged herein has injured (and unless enjoined,will continue to injure) consumers and competitors in the Relevant Market for search throughdecreased output, reduced choice, reduced innovation, and other anticompetitive effects includingraising additional barriers to entry in the Relevant Market.235. By reason of craigslist’s unlawful monopolization and/or attempted monopolizationof the search market, 3taps—a competitor in the upstream market for indexing which serves as abridge to the search market—has been injured in its business and property. Similarly, craigslist’santicompetitive scheme has injured craiggers and JeBoom by preventing these websites fromoffering their competitive search products.236. Unless enjoined and declared illegal, craigslist’s unlawful conduct will continue,3taps, craiggers, and JeBoom will continue to sustain injury and damages, and competition willcontinue to decrease in the Relevant Market.237. The injuries to 3taps, other competitors, consumers, and competition describedherein are the types of injuries that the antitrust laws are designed to prevent because they are adirect result of craigslist illegal, anticompetitive scheme to exclude competitors from the market.238. 3taps is entitled to injunctive relief and treble damages.27283TAPS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM70CASE NO.: 12-CV-3816-CRB