topco
associates
argued
november
decided
march
brought
injunction
action
charging
violation
sherman
act
appellee
topco
cooperative
association
small
independent
regional
supermarket
chains
operating
members
purchasing
agent
appellee
procures
different
items
brand
names
owned
topco
members
combined
retail
sales
billion
exceeded
three
national
grocery
chains
member
average
market
share
area
competitive
position
frequently
strong
chain
members
equal
amounts
topco
common
stock
voting
stock
choose
directors
completely
control
association
operations
topco
bylaws
establish
exclusive
category
territorial
licenses
members
licenses
issued
two
membership
categories
proved
de
facto
exclusive
since
member
system
may
sell
products
outside
territory
licensed
expansion
another
member
territory
practice
permitted
member
consent
since
member
effect
veto
power
admission
new
member
members
control
actual
potential
competition
territorial
areas
concerned
topco
members
prohibited
selling
products
supplied
association
wholesale
whether
trademarked
without
securing
special
permission
granted
without
consent
interested
licensees
usually
retailers
member
must
agree
restrict
topco
product
sales
specific
area
certain
conditions
government
charged
topco
scheme
dividing
markets
violates
sherman
act
operates
prohibit
competition
products
among
retail
grocery
chains
also
challenged
topco
restrictions
wholesaling
topco
contended
needs
territorial
divisions
maintain
program
enable
compete
larger
chains
association
exist
territorial
divisions
exclusive
restrictions
competition
sales
enable
members
meet
larger
chain
competition
district
agreeing
topco
upheld
restrictive
practices
reasonable
held
topco
scheme
allocating
territories
minimize
competition
retail
level
horizontal
restraint
constituting
per
se
violation
sherman
act
district
erred
applying
rule
reason
restrictive
practices
involved
sealy
topco
limitations
upon
reselling
wholesale
reason
per
se
invalid
pp
supp
reversed
remanded
marshall
delivered
opinion
douglas
brennan
stewart
white
joined
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
result
post
burger
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
powell
rehnquist
took
part
consideration
decision
case
howard
shapiro
argued
cause
briefs
solicitor
general
griswold
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
comegys
victor
grimm
argued
cause
appellee
brief
john
loughlin
william
carney
justice
marshall
delivered
opinion
brought
action
injunctive
relief
alleged
violation
topco
associates
topco
sherman
act
stat
amended
jurisdiction
grounded
act
following
trial
merits
district
northern
district
illinois
entered
judgment
topco
supp
appealed
directly
pursuant
expediting
act
stat
amended
noted
probable
jurisdiction
reverse
judgment
district
topco
cooperative
association
approximately
small
regional
supermarket
chains
operate
stores
member
chains
operates
independently
pooling
earnings
profits
capital
management
advertising
resources
grocery
business
conducted
topco
name
basic
function
serve
purchasing
agent
members
capacity
procures
distributes
members
different
food
related
nonfood
items
distributed
brand
names
owned
topco
association
manufacturing
processing
warehousing
facilities
items
procures
members
usually
shipped
directly
packer
manufacturer
members
payment
made
either
topco
directly
manufacturer
cost
virtually
members
topco
stock
topco
owned
members
common
stock
stock
voting
rights
equally
distributed
board
directors
controls
operation
association
drawn
members
normally
composed
executive
officers
member
chains
board
elects
association
officers
appoints
committee
members
board
principal
executive
officers
topco
must
drawn
restrictions
alienation
stock
procedure
selecting
important
officials
association
within
ranks
members
give
members
complete
unfettered
control
operations
association
topco
founded
group
small
local
grocery
chains
independently
owned
operated
desired
cooperate
obtain
high
quality
merchandise
private
labels
order
compete
effectively
larger
national
regional
chains
line
canned
dairy
products
association
began
added
frozen
foods
fresh
produce
general
merchandise
equipment
supplies
branded
bacon
carcass
beef
selection
program
topco
members
combined
retail
sales
billion
sales
totaled
billion
figure
exceeded
three
national
grocery
chains
members
association
vary
degree
market
share
possess
respective
areas
range
average
approximately
difficult
compare
figures
market
shares
larger
regional
national
chains
absence
record
accurate
statistics
chains
much
evidence
record
topco
members
frequently
strong
competitive
position
respective
areas
chain
strength
competitive
position
due
measure
success
products
although
total
goods
sold
topco
members
bear
association
brand
names
profit
goods
substantial
existence
improved
competitive
potential
topco
members
respect
large
powerful
chains
apparent
meager
beginnings
approximately
quarter
century
ago
topco
developed
purchasing
association
wholly
owned
operated
member
chains
possess
much
economic
muscle
individually
well
cooperatively
ii
section
sherman
act
provides
relevant
part
every
contract
combination
form
trust
otherwise
conspiracy
restraint
trade
commerce
among
several
foreign
nations
declared
illegal
continuing
agreement
understanding
concert
action
among
member
firms
acting
topco
substantial
terms
member
firm
sell
brands
within
marketing
territory
allocated
refrain
selling
brands
outside
marketing
territory
article
ix
topco
bylaws
establishes
three
categories
territorial
licenses
members
may
secure
association
exclusive
exclusive
territory
one
member
licensed
sell
products
bearing
specified
trademarks
association
exclusion
persons
territory
one
member
licensed
sell
products
bearing
specified
trademarks
association
exclusion
others
may
also
licensed
sell
products
bearing
trademarks
association
territory
coextensive
coextensive
territory
one
two
members
licensed
sell
products
bearing
specified
trademarks
association
exclusion
persons
following
approval
new
member
signs
agreement
topco
designating
territory
member
may
sell
products
member
may
sell
products
outside
territory
licensed
licenses
exclusive
even
denominated
coextensive
prove
de
facto
exclusive
exclusive
territorial
areas
often
allocated
members
actual
business
areas
theory
may
wish
expand
indefinite
future
time
expansion
likely
direction
allocated
territory
combined
member
veto
power
new
members
provisions
exclusivity
work
effectively
insulate
members
competition
goods
member
violate
license
agreement
sell
areas
licensed
membership
terminated
art
iv
bylaws
territory
classified
exclusive
either
formally
de
facto
extremely
unlikely
classification
ever
changed
see
bylaws
art
ix
government
maintains
scheme
dividing
markets
violates
sherman
act
operates
prohibit
competition
products
among
grocery
chains
engaged
retail
operations
government
also
makes
subsidiary
challenge
topco
practices
regarding
licensing
members
sell
wholesale
bylaws
members
permitted
sell
products
supplied
association
wholesale
whether
trademarked
without
first
applying
receiving
special
permission
association
permission
granted
licenses
usually
retailers
whose
interests
may
potentially
affected
wholesale
operations
consulted
wishes
matter
permission
obtained
member
must
agree
restrict
sale
topco
products
specific
geographic
area
sell
conditions
imposed
association
permission
wholesale
often
sought
members
denied
association
government
contends
amounts
territorial
restriction
violative
sherman
act
also
restriction
customers
violative
act
inception
lawsuit
topco
accepted
true
government
allegations
regarding
territorial
divisions
restrictions
wholesaling
although
differed
greatly
government
conclusions
factual
legal
drawn
facts
topco
answer
complaint
illustrative
posture
district
private
label
merchandising
way
economic
life
food
retailing
industry
exclusivity
essence
private
label
program
without
exclusivity
private
label
private
national
large
regional
chain
exclusive
private
label
products
addition
nationally
advertised
brands
chains
sell
chain
relies
upon
exclusivity
private
label
line
differentiate
private
label
products
competitors
attract
retain
repeat
business
loyalty
consumers
smaller
retail
grocery
stores
chains
unable
compete
effectively
national
large
regional
chains
without
also
offering
exclusive
private
label
products
feasible
method
topco
procure
private
label
products
assure
exclusivity
thereof
trademark
licenses
specifying
territory
member
may
sell
trademarked
products
answer
app
district
considering
things
relevant
decision
agreed
topco
recognized
panoply
restraints
topco
imposed
members
worked
prevent
competition
products
concluded
hatever
effect
practices
may
competition
sale
topco
private
label
brands
far
outweighed
increased
ability
topco
members
compete
national
chains
supermarkets
operating
respective
territories
supp
iii
face
sherman
act
appears
bar
combination
entrepreneurs
long
restraint
trade
theoretically
manufacturers
distributors
merchants
sellers
buyers
considered
potential
competitors
read
narrowest
possible
way
commercial
contract
deemed
violate
chicago
board
trade
brandeis
history
underlying
formulation
antitrust
laws
led
conclude
however
congress
intend
prohibit
contracts
even
contracts
might
insignificant
degree
attenuated
sense
restrain
trade
competition
lieu
narrowest
possible
reading
adopted
rule
reason
analysis
determining
whether
business
combinations
contracts
violate
prohibitions
sherman
act
standard
oil
analysis
reasonableness
particular
restraints
includes
consideration
facts
peculiar
business
restraint
applied
nature
restraint
effects
history
restraint
reasons
adoption
chicago
board
trade
supra
utilized
rule
reason
evaluating
legality
restraints
alleged
violative
sherman
act
also
developed
doctrine
certain
business
relationships
per
se
violations
act
without
regard
consideration
reasonableness
northern
pacific
justice
black
explained
appropriateness
need
per
se
rules
certain
agreements
practices
pernicious
effect
competition
lack
redeeming
virtue
conclusively
presumed
unreasonable
therefore
illegal
without
elaborate
inquiry
precise
harm
caused
business
excuse
use
principle
per
se
unreasonableness
makes
type
restraints
proscribed
sherman
act
certain
benefit
everyone
concerned
also
avoids
necessity
incredibly
complicated
prolonged
economic
investigation
entire
history
industry
involved
well
related
industries
effort
determine
large
whether
particular
restraint
unreasonable
inquiry
often
wholly
fruitless
undertaken
think
clear
restraint
case
horizontal
one
therefore
per
se
violation
district
failed
make
determination
whether
per
se
horizontal
territorial
restraints
case
simply
applied
rule
reason
reaching
conclusions
restraints
illegal
see
comment
horizontal
territorial
restraints
per
se
rule
lee
rev
district
erred
sealy
supra
fact
fours
case
sealy
licensed
manufacturers
mattresses
bedding
make
sell
products
using
sealy
trademark
like
topco
sealy
corporation
owned
almost
entirely
licensees
elected
board
directors
controlled
business
case
sealy
agreed
licensees
license
manufacturers
sellers
sell
products
designated
territory
exchange
promise
licensee
sold
territory
expand
sales
beyond
area
demarcated
sealy
held
horizontal
territorial
restraint
per
se
violative
sherman
act
whether
decide
case
way
rule
reason
used
district
irrelevant
issue
us
fact
courts
limited
utility
examining
difficult
economic
problems
inability
weigh
meaningful
sense
destruction
competition
one
sector
economy
promotion
competition
another
sector
one
important
reason
formulated
per
se
rules
applying
rigid
rules
consistently
rejected
notion
naked
restraints
trade
tolerated
well
intended
allegedly
developed
increase
competition
general
motors
masonite
fashion
originators
guild
ftc
antitrust
laws
general
sherman
act
particular
magna
carta
free
enterprise
important
preservation
economic
freedom
system
bill
rights
protection
fundamental
personal
freedoms
freedom
guaranteed
every
business
matter
small
freedom
compete
assert
vigor
imagination
devotion
ingenuity
whatever
economic
muscle
muster
implicit
freedom
notion
foreclosed
respect
one
sector
economy
certain
private
citizens
groups
believe
foreclosure
might
promote
greater
competition
important
sector
economy
cf
philadelphia
national
bank
district
determined
limiting
freedom
individual
members
compete
topco
greater
good
fostering
competition
members
large
supermarket
chains
fallacy
topco
authority
sherman
act
determine
respective
values
competition
various
sectors
economy
contrary
sherman
act
gives
topco
member
prospective
member
right
ascertain
whether
competition
supermarket
chains
desirable
competition
sale
products
without
territorial
restrictions
topco
members
may
indeed
cut
throats
cf
white
motor
supra
clark
dissenting
never
found
possibility
sufficient
warrant
condoning
horizontal
restraints
trade
previously
noted
respect
price
fixing
another
per
se
violation
sherman
act
reasonable
price
fixed
today
may
economic
business
changes
become
unreasonable
price
tomorrow
established
may
maintained
unchanged
absence
competition
secured
agreement
price
reasonable
fixed
trenton
potteries
tremendous
departures
notion
system
originally
conceived
country
departures
product
congressional
action
people
decision
made
sacrifice
competition
one
portion
economy
greater
competition
another
portion
decision
must
made
congress
private
forces
courts
private
forces
keenly
aware
interests
making
decisions
courts
decisionmaking
analyze
interpret
evaluate
myriad
competing
interests
endless
data
surely
brought
bear
decisions
make
delicate
judgment
relative
values
society
competitive
areas
economy
judgment
elected
representatives
people
required
territorial
restrictions
retailing
products
must
fall
must
territorial
restrictions
wholesaling
considerations
sherman
act
requires
identical
results
also
strike
topco
restrictions
right
members
wholesale
goods
restrictions
amount
regulation
customers
members
topco
may
sell
goods
like
territorial
restrictions
limitations
customers
intended
limit
competition
promote
competition
reasons
previously
discussed
arena
topco
members
compete
must
left
unfettered
choice
absent
contrary
congressional
determination
general
motors
supra
cf
arnold
schwinn
supra
masonite
supra
trenton
potteries
supra
see
also
white
motor
supra
clark
dissenting
reverse
judgment
district
remand
case
entry
appropriate
decree
ordered
footnotes
addition
purchasing
various
items
members
topco
performs
related
functions
insures
adequate
quality
control
products
purchases
assists
members
developing
specifications
certain
types
products
equipment
supplies
also
aids
members
purchasing
goods
sources
founding
members
topco
difficulty
competing
larger
chains
difficulty
attributable
degree
fact
larger
chains
capable
developing
programs
products
differ
products
sold
limited
number
easily
ascertainable
stores
example
pioneer
developing
series
products
sold
label
available
stores
obvious
using
products
chain
achieve
significant
cost
economies
purchasing
transportation
warehousing
promotion
advertising
economies
may
afford
chain
opportunities
offering
products
lower
prices
products
turn
provides
many
advantages
important
store
offer
products
price
stores
simultaneously
offering
desirable
lower
priced
alternative
profit
margin
sufficiently
high
goods
products
may
sold
reduced
price
advantages
include
enabling
chain
bargain
favorably
manufacturers
creating
broader
supply
base
manufacturers
thereby
decreasing
dependence
large
manufacturers
enabling
chain
create
whereby
prices
special
items
lowered
attract
customers
profits
maintained
items
creation
general
goodwill
offering
lower
priced
higher
quality
goods
three
largest
chains
safeway
kroger
topco
named
complaint
sole
defendant
complaint
clearly
charged
members
defendants
coconspirators
topco
violation
sherman
act
article
ix
bylaws
provides
relevant
part
unless
member
membership
licensing
agreement
provides
member
may
sell
wholesale
member
may
wholesale
products
supplied
association
membership
licensing
agreement
permits
member
sell
wholesale
member
shall
control
resale
products
bearing
trademarks
association
sales
confined
territories
granted
member
method
selling
shall
conform
respects
association
policies
apparent
bylaw
face
applies
whether
products
sold
trademarked
topco
despite
fact
topco
general
manager
testified
trial
practice
restriction
confined
products
district
found
bylaw
applied
written
find
nothing
clearly
erroneous
finding
assuming
arguendo
however
restriction
confined
products
trademarked
topco
result
case
change
government
first
raised
point
district
topco
objected
ground
variance
charge
complaint
district
apparently
agreed
topco
complaint
cover
customer
limitations
permitted
government
pursue
line
basis
limitations
proved
complaint
later
amended
app
topco
acquiesced
procedure
sides
dealt
customer
limitations
examining
witnesses
district
made
specific
findings
conclusions
respect
totality
restraints
wholesaling
light
facts
additional
fact
complaint
never
formally
amended
bar
consideration
issue
district
recognized
government
introduced
evidence
indicating
applications
topco
members
expand
territories
assigned
members
denied
supp
concluded
decisions
topco
appreciable
influence
decision
members
whether
expand
topco
expands
conclusion
brief
asserting
evidence
uncontradicted
member
never
failed
build
new
store
unable
obtain
license
brief
appellee
problem
conclusion
district
assertion
topco
wholly
inconsistent
notion
territorial
divisions
crucial
existence
topco
urged
association
found
district
filing
answer
argument
topco
maintained
without
guarantee
exclusive
territory
prospective
licensees
join
topco
present
licensees
leave
association
difficult
understand
topco
make
argument
simultaneously
urge
territorial
restrictions
unimportant
factor
decision
member
whether
expand
business
true
sealy
dealt
price
fixing
well
territorial
restrictions
extent
sealy
casts
doubt
whether
horizontal
territorial
limitations
unaccompanied
price
fixing
per
se
violations
sherman
act
remove
doubt
today
much
recent
commentary
wisdom
per
se
rules
see
comment
horizontal
territorial
restraints
per
se
rule
lee
rev
averill
sealy
schwinn
sherman
one
analysis
prognosis
note
selected
antitrust
problems
franchisor
exclusive
arrangements
territorial
restrictions
franchise
termination
rev
sadd
antitrust
symposium
territorial
customer
restrictions
sealy
schwinn
cin
rev
bork
rule
reason
per
se
concept
pt
price
fixing
market
division
yale
without
per
se
rules
businessmen
left
little
aid
predicting
particular
case
courts
find
legal
illegal
sherman
act
congress
ultimately
determine
predictability
unimportant
area
law
course
make
per
se
rules
inapplicable
cases
leave
courts
free
ramble
wilds
economic
theory
order
maintain
flexible
approach
justice
blackmun
concurring
result
conclusion
reaches
anomalous
aspects
surely
district
findings
make
clear
today
decision
government
favor
tend
stultify
topco
members
competition
great
larger
chains
bigs
therefore
find
easier
get
bigger
consequence
reality
seems
odds
public
interest
per
se
rule
however
appears
firmly
established
late
date
oppose
relief
forthcoming
apparently
must
way
legislation
chief
justice
burger
dissenting
case
involve
restraints
interbrand
competition
allocation
markets
association
monopoly
control
sources
supply
one
varieties
staple
goods
rather
agreement
among
several
small
grocery
chains
join
cooperative
endeavor
view
unquestionably
lawful
principal
purpose
pursuit
purpose
mutually
agreed
certain
minimal
ancillary
restraints
fully
reasonable
view
principal
purpose
never
today
held
per
se
violations
sherman
act
joining
cooperative
endeavor
small
chains
agree
restraints
issue
order
make
possible
exploit
already
established
line
products
noncompetitive
pricing
thing
topco
line
products
cooperative
formed
restraints
cooperative
members
agreed
deal
marketing
products
topco
line
function
restraints
permit
member
chain
establish
within
geographical
area
local
advertising
marketing
efforts
local
consumer
awareness
trademarked
family
products
member
private
label
line
goal
sought
enhancement
individual
members
abilities
compete
albeit
modest
degree
large
national
chains
successfully
marketing
lines
several
years
sole
reason
cooperative
endeavor
make
economically
feasible
things
quality
control
large
quantity
purchases
bulk
prices
development
attractively
printed
labels
ability
offer
number
different
lines
trademarked
products
things
course
feasible
large
national
chains
operating
individually
beyond
reach
small
operators
proceeding
alone
careful
review
economic
considerations
bearing
upon
case
district
determined
relief
government
seeks
increase
competition
topco
private
label
brands
contrary
relief
substantially
diminish
competition
supermarket
field
supp
today
determined
basis
examination
underlying
economic
realities
district
conclusions
incorrect
rather
majority
holds
district
business
examining
topco
practices
rule
reason
sought
determine
whether
topco
practices
fact
restrain
trade
commerce
within
meaning
sherman
act
found
practices
involve
horizontal
division
markets
fact
per
se
violations
act
believe
prior
decisions
justify
result
reached
majority
believe
new
per
se
rule
established
disposing
case
judicial
convenience
ready
predictability
made
possible
per
se
rules
overriding
considerations
antitrust
law
justify
promulgation
without
careful
prior
consideration
relevant
economic
realities
light
basic
policy
goals
sherman
act
deal
first
cases
upon
majority
relies
stating
reiterated
time
time
orizontal
territorial
limitations
naked
restraints
trade
purpose
except
stifling
competition
white
motor
white
motor
course
laid
per
se
rule
horizontal
territorial
limitations
involved
case
indeed
white
motor
reversed
district
holding
vertically
imposed
territorial
limitations
per
se
violations
explaining
need
know
actual
impact
arrangements
competition
decide
whether
classified
per
se
violations
sherman
act
statement
white
motor
opinion
quoted
majority
today
made
without
citation
authority
apparently
intended
primarily
make
clear
facts
confused
horizontally
imposed
territorial
limitations
treat
dictum
case
controlling
course
unjustified
quoted
dictum
white
motor
cites
eight
cases
proposition
horizontal
territorial
limitations
per
se
violations
sherman
act
one
cases
northern
pacific
dealt
exclusively
prohibited
tying
arrangement
improperly
cited
case
concerned
division
markets
remaining
seven
cases
four
involved
aggregation
trade
restraints
included
agreements
timken
roller
bearing
sealy
serta
associates
supp
nd
price
fixing
course
factor
instant
case
another
cases
relied
upon
national
lead
involved
arrangement
dividing
territories
pooling
patents
exchanging
technological
information
arrangement
found
illegal
district
without
reliance
per
se
rule
affirming
concerned
almost
exclusively
remedies
ordered
district
made
attempt
declare
per
se
rule
govern
merits
case
still
another
case
majority
relies
arnold
schwinn
district
indeed
held
agreements
manufacturer
certain
distributors
providing
latter
exclusive
territories
horizontal
nature
per
se
violations
act
supp
since
appeal
taken
part
district
order
issue
review
case
indeed
dealing
issues
followed
approach
markedly
different
district
first
reviewing
case
made
clear
proceeding
rule
reason
per
se
rule
second
saw
issues
presented
involving
vertical
horizontal
restraints
hardly
contended
therefore
decision
schwinn
controlling
precedent
application
instant
case
per
se
rule
prohibits
horizontal
restraints
without
regard
market
effects
finally
remains
eighth
cases
relied
upon
actually
first
list
authorities
purported
per
se
rule
circuit
judge
later
chief
justice
taft
opinion
addyston
pipe
steel
aff
generally
recognized
properly
fully
authoritative
exposition
antitrust
law
neither
affirming
made
pretense
establishing
per
se
rule
agreements
involving
horizontal
territorial
limitations
defendants
case
manufacturers
vendors
pipe
entered
combination
raise
prices
pipe
throughout
number
constituting
considerably
territory
significantly
called
pay
territory
associated
defendants
combination
controlled
manufactured
output
pipe
pay
territory
certain
cities
reserved
cities
within
territory
assigned
particular
individual
defendants
sold
pipe
cities
prices
fixed
association
defendants
submitting
fictitious
bids
selling
defendants
paying
fixed
bonus
association
sale
outside
reserved
cities
sales
defendants
customers
pay
territory
prices
determined
association
allocated
association
member
offered
secret
auction
pay
largest
bonus
association
effect
course
buying
public
lost
benefit
competitive
pricing
although
case
frequently
quite
properly
cited
horizontal
case
sole
purpose
secret
customer
allocations
enable
members
association
fix
prices
charged
public
noncompetitive
levels
judge
taft
rejected
defendants
argument
prices
actually
charged
reasonable
held
sufficient
finding
sherman
act
violation
combination
agreement
defendants
gave
monopoly
power
rather
market
forces
fixed
prices
pipe
nation
territory
case
unquestionably
laid
important
groundwork
subsequent
establishment
per
se
rule
price
fixing
however
establish
horizontal
division
markets
without
per
se
violation
sherman
act
ii
foregoing
analysis
cases
relied
upon
majority
indicates
merely
following
prior
holdings
contrary
establishing
new
per
se
rule
face
district
well
supported
findings
effects
rule
case
adverse
public
welfare
lays
rule
without
regard
impact
condemned
practices
may
competition
virtually
invites
congress
undertake
determine
impact
ante
question
whether
fulfilling
role
assigned
statute
declines
make
determination
event
unwilling
record
assess
economic
impact
surely
proceed
make
new
rule
govern
economic
activity
white
motor
one
versions
proposed
act
senate
consideration
senator
sherman
lengthy
obviously
carefully
prepared
address
body
said
bill
sought
prevent
control
combinations
made
view
prevent
competition
restraint
trade
increase
profits
producer
cost
consumer
unlawful
combination
tested
rules
common
law
human
experience
aimed
bill
lawful
useful
combination
admit
difficult
define
legal
language
precise
line
lawful
unlawful
combinations
must
left
courts
determine
particular
case
lawmakers
declare
general
principles
assured
courts
apply
carry
meaning
law
cong
rec
certain
agreements
practices
pernicious
effect
competition
lack
redeeming
virtue
conclusively
presumed
unreasonable
therefore
illegal
without
elaborate
inquiry
precise
harm
caused
business
excuse
use
respect
believe
two
basic
fallacies
approach
first
characterize
role
sherman
act
one
rambl
ing
wilds
indeed
one
requires
examin
ation
difficult
economic
problems
undoubtedly
ease
task
abdicate
role
formulation
per
se
rules
justification
enhancement
predictability
reduction
judicial
investigation
second
general
proposition
per
se
rules
play
necessary
role
antitrust
law
follow
particular
per
se
rule
promulgated
today
appropriate
one
although
might
well
desirable
proper
case
formulate
per
se
rule
dealing
horizontal
territorial
limitations
necessarily
appropriate
rule
amount
blanket
prohibition
limitations
specifically
far
clear
rule
cover
agreements
involve
price
fixing
concerned
trademarked
products
monopoly
position
respect
competing
brands
instant
case
presents
agreement
decide
upon
basis
per
se
rule
district
specifically
found
horizontal
restraints
involved
tend
positively
promote
competition
supermarket
field
produce
lower
costs
consumer
seems
implicitly
accept
determination
says
sherman
act
give
topco
authority
determine
whether
competition
supermarket
chains
desirable
competition
sale
products
ante
majority
overlooks
specific
determination
district
namely
invalidation
restraints
issue
increase
competition
topco
private
label
brands
indeed
district
seemed
believe
contrary
lead
likely
demise
brands
time
evidence
district
appear
justify
conclusion
national
demand
topco
brands
ever
national
advertising
brands
impracticable
topco
limited
financial
resources
convert
national
brand
distributor
competition
distributors
existing
national
brands
furthermore
without
right
grant
exclusive
licenses
attract
hold
new
members
replacements
present
members
following
pattern
past
eventually
grow
sufficiently
size
able
leave
cooperative
organization
develop
individual
brands
moreover
topco
present
members
today
decision
full
impact
course
time
reason
promote
topco
products
local
advertising
merchandising
efforts
reason
promote
generally
available
brands
issues
presented
antitrust
cases
reaching
rarely
simple
resolve
rule
reason
indeed
frequently
require
us
make
difficult
economic
determinations
reason
alone
however
overly
zealous
formulating
new
per
se
rules
excess
zeal
regard
contrary
policy
sherman
act
detrimental
welfare
consumers
generally
indeed
economic
effect
new
rule
laid
today
seems
clear
unless
congress
intervenes
grocery
staples
marketed
brands
lower
consumer
prices
soon
available
patronize
large
national
chains
district
findings
fact
include
following
competitively
effective
private
label
program
independently
undertaken
single
retailer
chain
require
annual
sales
volume
million
order
achieve
optimum
efficiency
volume
required
probably
twice
amount
supp
dictum
case
effect
addyston
pipe
steel
aff
established
division
markets
unlawful
show
however
addyston
pipe
established
thing
primarily
case
agree
description
sealy
fours
case
ante
sealy
support
proposition
restraints
topco
licensees
horizontally
imposed
beyond
however
sealy
hardly
controlling
territorial
restrictions
sealy
found
intimately
part
unlawful
policing
scheme
two
arrangements
fell
together
unlawful
resale
activity
refutes
appellee
claim
territorial
restraints
mere
incidents
lawful
program
trademark
licensing
cf
timken
roller
bearing
territorial
restraints
part
unlawful
policing
summarizing
findings
district
made
following
statements
story
seen
whole
blinking
fact
free
commerce
titanium
every
pound
trammelled
privately
imposed
regulation
channels
commerce
formed
winds
currents
competition
large
measure
artificial
canals
privately
constructed
titanium
pigments
enter
except
consent
nl
defendant
national
lead
foreign
titanium
pigments
move
interstate
commerce
except
like
approval
titanium
pigment
produced
nl
may
leave
ports
points
outside
western
hemisphere
supp
district
clearly
decided
case
rule
reason
found
combination
conspiracy
restraint
trade
restraint
unreasonable
outlawed
section
sherman
act
emphasis
added
rejected
argument
made
defense
basic
agreement
arrangement
founded
permissible
doctrine
validates
covenants
restraint
trade
reasonably
ancillary
lawful
principal
purpose
territorial
allocation
unreasonable
scope
measured
business
actualities
emphasis
added
appellees
appeal
findings
order
invalidating
territorial
restraints
resale
distributors
government
contend
per
se
violation
sherman
act
presented
practices
involved
appeal
accordingly
remitted
appraisal
market
impact
practices
must
look
specifics
challenged
practices
impact
upon
marketplace
order
make
judgment
whether
restraint
reasonable
special
sense
sherman
act
must
read
purposes
type
inquiry
confronted
challenged
vertical
restrictions
territory
dealers
horizontal
restraints
actors
distributors
without
manufacturer
participation
among
facts
found
district
following
brand
merchandising
beyond
reach
small
chains
acting
independently
definition
depends
upon
local
exclusivity
permits
merchandiser
offer
public
lower
consumer
prices
products
high
quality
bargain
favorably
national
brand
manufacturers
merchandising
fosters
establishment
broader
supply
base
manufacturers
thereby
decreasing
dependence
upon
relatively
large
national
brand
manufacturers
also
enables
maller
manufacturers
common
source
private
label
products
generally
unable
develop
national
brand
name
recognition
products
benefit
assurance
substantial
market
products
seems
ironical
another
antitrust
case
decided
today
ford
motor
ante
contrast
handling
instant
case
goes
way
commend
another
district
treatment
problem
involving
predictions
assumptions
concerning
future
economic
business
events
national
chains
market
products
products
available
nowhere
else
stores
chains
stores
one
chain
course
engage
price
competition
respect
chain
brands
serious
suggestion
made
sherman
act
requires
otherwise
fail
see
difference
whatsoever
economic
effect
topco
arrangement
marketing
products
methods
used
national
chains
marketing
brands
true
topco
arrangement
involves
combination
national
chains
single
integrated
corporation
controlling
consideration
however
neither
case
policy
sherman
act
offended
practices
cases
work
benefit
detriment
consuming
public