Antitrust 1 Prof. E. Fox Fall 2004 1 I. Introduction to Antitrust Law 4 a. General Background 4

Attempt to Monopolize

• 
  Swift v. U.S. - π’s Burden!
  

• 
  π must prove:
  

• 
  Δ has specific intent to harm competition (i.e., raising rivals cost)
  

• 
  Δ used anticompetitive conduct to achieve unlawful purpose
  

• 
  Offending acts created a dangerous probability of success of the attempt to monopolize
  

• 
  Δ must already have considerable market power or be en route to monopoly
  

• 
  π must define the relevant market, Δ’s share of that market, and other structural elements
  

• 
  π also must prove anticompetitive conduct which might, if unchecked, lead to monopoly
  

• 
  NOTE: there is a presumption that the additional act needed to bring about a monopoly is simply a mere force of nature
  

• 
  Difference b/t proof in §1 and §2  §1 d/n require monopolistic acts or practices, just agreement
  

1. 
   
   Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
   upload documents -> Always put things in threes (eskridge has ocd) I. Procedural Due Process and Reading a Case
   upload documents -> Federalism – The Structure of Government
   upload documents -> General Info About Property law
   upload documents -> Con law professor Larry Sager Fall 1995 I. U. S. Term limits V. Thornton
   upload documents -> Property with Professor Vicki Been
   upload documents -> Property Outline – Professor Upham, Spring 2000
   upload documents -> Constitutional law outline part I: structure of government judicial review and constitutional interpretation
   upload documents -> Complex federal investigations
   upload documents -> Foundations: Agency Law Introduction to law of enterprise organizations
   upload documents -> Pricing v. Sanctions
   
   
   
   Share with your friends: