Sprint Nextel and C Spire haven’t built a sound legal...

the Justice Department’s challenge to the deal. Case law is “well-established as to what must be pled … to warrant competitor standing under Section 16 of the Clayton Act,” AT&T said. “A competitor may not simply claim that increased concentration from a horizontal merger will lead to higher prices in the market in which it competes with the merging parties. That alleged impact would benefit, not harm, direct competitors such as Plaintiffs.” Sprint and C Spire (formerly Cellular South) base their arguments that they should be allowed to join the government’s lawsuit on a single case from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Community Publishers, Inc. v. Donrey Corp., AT&T said. “But that case depended on alleged facts about a particular market for newspaper advertising that have no counterpart in the complaints here,” the carrier argued. Sprint and C Spire try to get around this problem “by raising the costs of certain inputs -- wireless devices, roaming, and dedicated fixed transport or ‘backhaul'” as a result of the merger, AT&T said. “That theory of competitor harm is at least cognizable under the antitrust laws. But those aspects of Plaintiffs’ complaints must still be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege that the merger threatens a substantial effect on a properly defined input market.” Judge Ellen Huvelle is expected to rule on whether she will allow the two competitors to join the Department of Justice’s case following oral arguments later this month.