Difference between revisions of "Alcoa case"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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. |
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Antitrust]] |
Latest revision as of 21:12, December 12, 2009
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.