| | "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." 15 U.S.C. § 2. | | "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." 15 U.S.C. § 2. |
| − | As with [[Sherman Act Section One|Section One]] of the Sherman Act, Section Two is typically enforced by one firm suing another in a civil lawsuit. To prevail under Section Two, a plaintiff must prove '''all''' of the following: | + | As with [[Sherman Act Section One|Section One]] of the Sherman Act, Section Two is typically enforced by one firm suing another in a civil lawsuit. To prevail under one type of Section Two claim, a plaintiff must prove '''all''' of the following: |
| | (1) an agreement or understanding between two or more parties and (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. See, e.g., ''Robinson v. Magovern'', 521 F.Supp. 842, 892 (W.D. Pa. 1981). | | (1) an agreement or understanding between two or more parties and (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. See, e.g., ''Robinson v. Magovern'', 521 F.Supp. 842, 892 (W.D. Pa. 1981). |
| | In at least the Second and Third Circuits, proof of a dangerous likelihood of monopolization is not required. ''See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Penn Presbypyterian Med. Ctr.'', 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149664 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011). | | In at least the Second and Third Circuits, proof of a dangerous likelihood of monopolization is not required. ''See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Penn Presbypyterian Med. Ctr.'', 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149664 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011). |
| | + | To prevail under another type of Section Two claim, "Both the possession of monopoly power and its willful misuse are necessary to sustain a charge of illegal monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act." ''United States v. S. Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.'', 672 F.2d 469, 484 (5th Cir. 1982). |