Tagged: limiting competition
“An anti-trust case is made out by proof of the fact of conspiracy, although overt acts need not be proved. Nor is actual success in impeding competition a necessary condition. If the necessary consequence of a conspiracy is to produce a result which the anti-trust laws are designed to prevent, the conspirators are “in legal contemplation chargeable with intending that result.” What one may legally do alone may be illegal if done in concert with another; a series of contracts may have illegal consequences which would not exist were there only a single contract. An unlawful agreement or conspiracy may be implied from a concert of action, which, in turn, may be inferred from similarity of action. Acts innocent by themselves may properly be enjoined if they appear to be steps in a conspiracy, and agreements which might be legal standing alone may be stricken to enforce Sherman Act standards.”
Source: Philip Marcus. Civil Rights and the Anti-trust Laws. 18 U. Chi. L. Rev. 171, 177-8 1950-1951.
Me Against Iniquity: Understanding the Complexities of Global White Supremacy (Racism) Through The Eyes of an Unapologetically BLACK Intellectual 