[Am-info] Legal monopoly?

[ethical@1of1.net]

In a message dated 2002 April 30 (Tuesday), timestamp 06:48 PM, 
   on the topic Re: [Am-info] Legal monopoly?,
   John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

"|On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 01:16:12PM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote: > On
"|> 
"|> Repeat after me: Monopolies are not illegal.

"|Repeat after me: I will read Section 2 of the Sherman Act before
"|putting  foot in mouth.

Sujal is correct.  It is necessary in an action for violation of §2 to
prove the existence of predatory practices as well as monopoly power. 

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

The "spin," as you call it, was that of the great jurist Learned Hand
in the Alcoa case (United States v. Aluminum Company of America), 148
F2d 416 (2d Cir 1945), a case decided in the Second Circuit under
unique procedural circumstances that made the decision effectively a
decision of the Supreme Court.  In any event, the Alcoa decision on
that point was expressly adopted by the Supreme Court a year later in
American Tobacco Company v. United States, 328 US 721 (1946), at
811-14, and reaffirmed in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery
Corp., 392 US 481 (1968).  


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
/*\   T. Guilbert
\ /   "Ethical at One of One dot Net"  
 X    Portland, Oregon, United States of America  
/ \     [ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML postings] 
-----------------------------------------------------------