Monopolization and Other Issues

While the antitrust laws cover a myriad of other issues such as monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize (§ 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2) and tie-ins and exclusive dealing agreements (§ 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 3), those issues historically have generally not been in the forefront of antitrust law jurisprudence, although very recent cases ( U.S. v. Microsoft , 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001); LePages v. 3M , 2003 WL1480498 (3rd Cir. 2003), and Conwood Company v. U.S. Tobacco, 2002 Fed. App. 0171 (6th Cir. 2002), along with Coca Cola v. Harmar Bottling Co., a Texas Court of Appeals case (85 ATRR 2116), decided July 17, 2003, all upholding monopolization claims, may signal increased § 2 monopolization enforcement.

Turning from the macro to the micro, a few specifics about § 1 seem appropriate, since it is perhaps the fundamental building block for all antitrust jurisprudence (with the exception of the R-P Act).