[Am-info] Legal monopoly?

[Eric Bennett]

John Poltorak wrote:

> What spin would you put on this section of the Sherman Act?

Legally, there is a distinction between a business which bases its
activities on the premise of responding to market forces and creating
better products or more efficient business practices, and a business which
bases its activities on the primary goal of destroying competition.  The
latter is the "monopolization" that is prohibited by the Sherman Act; the
former is not considered "monopolization" for legal purposes even if the
end result of such behavior is a monopoly.  The Supreme Court notes the
difference in US v. Grinnell Corp, among other cases (you can look the case
up at www.findlaw.com).


-- 
Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )

Artists can color the sky red because they know it's blue.  Those
of us who aren't artists must color things the way they really
are or people might think we're stupid. -Jules Feiffer