Changes

(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 Presbyterian 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).

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).