As for seed money, as an academic you probably have better access to such funds. I’d think that a partnership between GMU Law and Econ departments could seek a grant from DOE, which funded Iowa. I’ll keep this in mind, though, as I talk with my thinktank friends.

See, e.g., the Twombly case in S.D.N.Y. / 2d. Cir. / S.Ct.

Belvi’s problem wasn’t getting space, it seems, so much as being able to compete with Starbucks on the merits once it got the space. Belvi is horrified that Starbucks solicited some of Belvi’s customers with free samples of Starbucks coffee. But it’s hard to see how such a standard marketing strategy is “predatory.” Many firms give out free product samples as a way to educate consumers. It’s quite a stretch to call that predatory.

The class action aspect of the complaint is also mysterious. The larger the class of incumbent and potential entrant firms in the Seattle and Bellevue coffee shop markets, the less convincing a Section 2 monopolization allegation becomes. This is, after all, an industry with low barriers to entry. As the complaint itself defines the relevant class, any existing shop can enter the specialty coffee market simply by purchasing an espresso machine!