![]() But the antitrust laws need not tolerate exclusionary conduct whenever it appears that only one competitor can survive the preliminary bout. National Football League, 323 F.2d 124, 131 (4th Cir. This variance allows businesses to compete fairly for a natural monopoly market, with assurance that the winner will not be penalized. The characteristics of a natural monopoly make it inappropriate to apply the usual rule that success in driving competitors from the market is evidence of illegal monopolization. The record contains no evidence that the Greenville market cannot accommodate the Daily Reflector and both shoppers guides, but even if we proceeded on the assumption that one of the shoppers guides must fail, deliberate exclusionary conduct would still support a charge of attempted monopoly. Defendants have suggested that Greenville is a natural newspaper monopoly and that we should apply a more lenient standard under the Sherman Act.After cataloging the many interstate contacts of both the newspaper and the competing radio station, the Supreme Court settled on a narrow ground of decision. 162 (1951), the Supreme Court applied the "in commerce" test to a smalltown Ohio newspaper. Silver State Disposal Co., 420 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. An antitrust plaintiff may establish the necessary connection with interstate commerce in either of two ways: by demonstrating that the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred in interstate commerce, or by showing that the conduct, though wholly intrastate, had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.First Federal Savings Loan Ass'n, 461 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. These facts are sufficient to sustain plaintiff's allegations at this stage of the litigation. Because the Ayden News-Leader sells advertising to Greenville merchants, it is reasonable to infer that Whichard could benefit personally from the elimination of The Advocate. ![]() Whichard's deposition establishes that he is affiliated with the Ayden News-Leader, a weekly newspaper in Pitt County, that he receives $5.00 for each page it prints, and that if its advertising revenues should reach a certain level he would receive a percentage. We agree with the general rule but think an exception may be justified when the officer has an independent personal stake in achieving the corporation's illegal objective. The district court held that a corporation cannot be guilty of conspiring with its officers or agents, following the rule stated in Nelson Radio Supply Co. Whichard II, president, director, and stockholder of The Daily Reflector, Inc., was a party to a combination or conspiracy with the corporate defendant. Construed liberally, the complaint alleges that David J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |