Difference between revisions of "Alcoa case"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The decision of ''United States v. Aluminum Co. of America'' (ALCOA), 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), established that a highly successful business that obtains a monopoly due to its success can be held in violation of the antitrust laws against "monopolization". In this decision, the famous appellate Judge Learned Hand ruled against ALCOA because it "effectively anticipated and forestalled all competition." ''Id.'' at 431. | + | The decision of ''United States v. Aluminum Co. of America'' (ALCOA), 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), established that a highly successful business that obtains a [[monopoly]] due to its success can be held in violation of the [[antitrust laws]] against "monopolization". In this decision, the famous appellate Judge [[Learned Hand]] ruled against ALCOA because it "effectively anticipated and forestalled all competition." ''Id.'' at 431. |
Revision as of 08:29, March 11, 2007
The decision of United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (ALCOA), 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), established that a highly successful business that obtains a monopoly due to its success can be held in violation of the antitrust laws against "monopolization". In this decision, the famous appellate Judge Learned Hand ruled against ALCOA because it "effectively anticipated and forestalled all competition." Id. at 431.