You are on page 1of 1

367-382

Sherman Act 1 and 2

Act 1: prohibits agreements in restraint of trade

Agreement element—concerted action requirement. 4 gas stations raise the
price without talking. (this is not an agreement.

Agreement must restrain trade—unreasonably-

Rule of reason- does it improve or not competition.. pro or anti- competition.

Must have pro-competitive reasons for the restraint. Full blown or quick look.

Per se inside the box illegal

Section 2—much more section 1 cases than section two

Power--Actually monopolize- define the market and then infer they have power

Monopoly by itself is not illegal. Can be regulated.

Conduct--Attempts to monopolize—have had to have done something bad.

Specific intent to monopolize..

No agreement-, no power, no dangerious proximity then no anti-sherman act
problem.

If agreement then ask about competition-- full blown, quick look or perse horizontal
are much more suspicious than vertical.

If actual monopoly power then ask if it was achieved by bad conduct. Could also
keep the bad conduct by a bad means.

What if they are close and got the power by bad conduct.

American Needle v NFL—insignia on hats.

Blanket licence—

What conduct is legal or illegal. Progressively embraced each new opportunity haha
Alcoa!!

Remedy-- should we break up the monopoly or other remedy.

Monopsony—monopoly--