This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Antitrust Outline Overall Trends in Antitrust Law The Chicago School has achieved major victories in antitrust law o Since the 1970s the Chicago view has dominated antitrust jurisprudence o Efficiency is the fundamental concern for Chicago theorists o A fundamental beneficiary of the antitrust laws, under a Chicago School approach, is the consumer o Cite Sylvania b first case to endorse the economic approach s Say that Sylvania is a deviation from Topco (where the ct. was hesitant to run through the wilds of economic theory) BUTit is important to remember that antitrust law is cyclical The Common Law of Antitrust Dyers Case (1415) o Facts: P sued on a debtD claimed that the debt had been discharged b/c he had not, as per agreement, not practiced as a dyer for 6 months o The court said that the agreement not to work itself was against the CL o The main focus was protecting the consumer Schoolmasters Case (1410) o Facts: one school (D) opened in a town where another school (P) already existedCourt found for D (allowed it to continue in operation) s Even though the increased competition harmed P o Again, the main focus is on protecting consumers Case of Monopolies (1602) o Facts: queen granted monopoly on playing cardscourt found this monopoly unlawful o We see the court explaining some of the negative effects of monopolies s Increased price (consumer focus), decreased quality (consumer focus), harms those previously employed in the trade (NOT consumer focusperhaps not consistent w/ current views) o What is really going on: separation of powers issue (queen v. parliament) Mitchell v. Reynolds o Is a leading case advocating a Rule of Reason analysis o Facts: The court found that the agreement not to practice as a baker was ancillary to the lawful lease of the bakery s The restraint survived ROR analysis (limited in time and area) o Naked restraints b per se unlawful o Ancillary restraints b subject to Rule of Reason analysis The Sherman Act (1890) Was originally an attempt to codify the Common Law (arguablylegislative history is ambiguous) o HOWEVER, the CL was not always clear s It can be read as focusing on consumers, small businesses, or a number of other things o Prof. Bork suggests that there IS a CL focus on consumers (a Chicago view) 1 b deals w/ contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade o requires JOINT action 2 b deals w/ monopolization www.swapnotes.com o does NOT require joint action Early Cases U.S. v. Trans Missouri Freight (1897) o J. Peckham basically rejected any reasonableness defense and ruled that all combinations in restraint of trade are illegal (very textualist) s This view is later changed by Addyston Pipe Addyston Pipe (1899) o J. Taft sets forth the ancillary restraint doctrine s Naked restraints on competition b per se illegal s Ancillary restraints on trade b subject to ROR analysis Northern Securities (1895)...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7557 taught by Professor Crane during the Fall '07 term at Yeshiva.
- Fall '07