Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC

Last updated

Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 10, 1941
Decided March 3, 1941
Full case nameFashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC
Citations312 U.S. 457 ( more )
61 S. Ct. 703; 85 L. Ed. 949; 48 U.S.P.Q. 483
Case history
Prior114 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1940); cert. granted, 311 U.S. 641(1940).
Holding
A practice short of a complete monopoly but which tends to create a monopoly and to deprive the public of the advantages from free competition in interstate trade, offends the policy of the Sherman Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Harlan F. Stone  · Owen Roberts
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy

Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), is a 1941 decision of the United States Supreme Court sustaining an order of the Federal Trade Commission against a boycott agreement (concerted refusal to deal) among manufacturers of "high-fashion" dresses. The purpose of the boycott was to suppress "style piracy" (unauthorized copying of original dress creations of Fashion Guild members). The FTC found the Fashion Guild in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, because the challenged conduct was a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. [1]

Contents

Background

The Fashion Originators Guild of America (FOGA) and its members made and sold medium– and high–priced, fashionable women's dresses [2] to retailers, who select their purchases from designs exhibited in show rooms in New York City. [3] The members made their dresses from their own "original designs." The designs were not protected by patents or copyrights, which were not available for clothing in 1941, and therefore other dress manufacturers (so-called "style pirates") made and sold unauthorized copies. [4]

FOGA label from a 1930s dress FOGA label from 1930s dress.jpg
FOGA label from a 1930s dress

The Guild was organized in 1932 to protect its members from "piracy," which they said was an unfair and tortious invasion of their rights. "Because of these alleged wrongs, petitioners . . . combined among themselves to combat and, if possible, destroy all competition from the sale of garments which are copies of their original creations." The Guild and its members agreed to refuse to sell any dresses to retailers who purchased, or ordered to be manufactured, dresses which the Guild found embodied copies of its members' designs. For that purpose the Guild set up a "Piracy Committee," which decided which of the designs registered by its members were original. It then employed shoppers in various parts of the country who visited the shops of retailers and report delinquents: if a retailer was found to be selling "pirated designs," it must stop doing so, or else it would get no more dresses from the Guild's members; nor would it be allowed to see the designs exhibited in the Guild's New York show rooms. Retailers that co-operated with the Guild had to agree to accept the decision of the Piracy Committee, and to return to sellers any dresses that had been "pirated." Furthermore, they had to warrant to customers that the designs of the dresses they sold had not been "pirated." As a result of the Guild's efforts, approximately 12,000 retailers signed agreements to "cooperate" with the Guild's boycott program. [5]

If the Guild, upon auditing a member's books, found that a manufacturer was selling to a retailer dealing in pirated designs, the manufacturer was heavily fined. (In one instance, a fine of $1,500 was imposed, and the Guild notified its membership that a fine of $5,000 would be assessed in case of future violation.) The Guild also regulated the discount the manufacturers could allow, prohibited their selling at retail, and cooperated with local guilds in regulating days upon which special sales could be held. [6]

The FTC issued a complaint against FOGA in April 1936, [7] held hearings, found the pattern of conduct described above an unfair method of competition, and "made an order appropriate to break up the combination," from which the Guild appealed. [8]

Ruling by Second Circuit

FOGA did not challenge the accuracy of the findings, "but on the contrary seeks to justify the combination." It argued that says that its actions "were necessary to protect the industry as a whole from 'demoralization' and the 'property' of its members from appropriation." [8]

The Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Learned Hand, held that any common-law property right that the FOGA members had in their creations was lost upon publication. To embody a design in a dress or a fabric, and offer the dress for general sale was such a "publication"; therefore, the FOGA members had no property right against the copying by the so–called style pirates. "The Guild has therefore no . . . excuse for preventing other dressmakers from copying." Accordingly, the court said, "we are therefore to judge the Guild as a combination seeking to exclude outsiders from a market to which they have as lawful access as it has itself." A boycott can be justifiable only if it is in self-defense against a crime, tort, or breach of contract. "But that excuse does not extend to a boycott of retailers who buy dresses copied from 'published' designs; if that is to be justified, the excuse must be found elsewhere." The court could find no other excuse, and it observed that the effect of the boycott by the FOGA members "puts into their hands collectively the power to control the supply and with it the price," to the detriment of consumers. The court perceived each dress design as the subject of a monopoly (i.e., relevant submarket), so that "for these reasons the combination was unlawful per se." [9]

Justice Hugo Black HugoLaFayetteBlack.jpg
Justice Hugo Black

Ruling by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Hugo Black, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit on different grounds. The Court did not consider whether FOGA had property rights that were wrongfully invaded, or whether a boycott could be justified on some ground. It held horizontal boycotts (concerted refusals to deal) illegal per se.

The Court began by declaring, "If the purpose and practice of the combination of garment manufacturers and their affiliates runs counter to the public policy declared in the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Federal Trade Commission has the power to suppress it as an unfair method of competition." The Court then considered whether the challenged boycott violated the letter of the Sherman or Clayton Acts, and found both to have been violated. [10]

The Court then found that FOGA's "scheme" vioated § 3 of the Clayton Act because "the scheme is bottomed upon a system of sale under which (1) textiles shall be sold to garment manufacturers only upon the condition and understanding that the buyers will not use or deal in textiles which are copied from the designs of textile manufacturing Guild members; (2) garment manufacturers shall sell to retailers only upon the condition and understanding that the retailers shall not use or deal in such copied designs." Since the FTC concluded "that these understandings substantially lessened competition and tended to create a monopoly," the FTC "correctly concluded that this practice constituted an unfair method of competition." [11]

FOGA's program also violated the policies of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, in that: "it narrows the outlets to which garment and textile manufacturers can sell and the sources from which retailers can buy; subjects all retailers and manufacturers who decline to comply with the Guild's program to an organized boycott; takes away the freedom of action of members by requiring each to reveal to the Guild the intimate details of their individual affairs; and has both as its necessary tendency and as its purpose and effect the direct suppression of competition from the sale of unregistered textiles and copied designs." In addition, FOGA's "combination is in reality an extra-governmental agency which prescribes rules for the regulation and restraint of interstate commerce and provides extrajudicial tribunals for determination and punishment of violations, and thus 'trenches upon the power of the national legislature and violates the statute.' " [12]

FOGA argued that the "boycott and restraint of interstate trade is not within the ban of the policies of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, because 'the practices of FOGA were reasonable and necessary to protect the manufacturer, laborer, retailer and consumer against the devastating evils growing from the pirating of original designs and had in fact benefited all four. " In addition, FOGA said, the copying of dress designs against which FOGA directed its conduct was itself tortious. The Court rejected these arguments, saying:

[E]ven if copying were an acknowledged tort under the law of every state, that situation would not justify petitioners in combining together to regulate and restrain interstate commerce in violation of federal law. And for these same reasons, the principles declared in International News Service v. Associated Press cannot serve to legalize petitioners' unlawful combination. [13]

Subsequent developments

In Associated Press v. United States [14] the Supreme Court condemned the restrictive by-laws of the AP because, like FOGA, AP was operating as a private government:

Here as in the Fashion Originator's Guild case, 'the combination is in reality an extra-governmental agency, which prescribes rules for the regulation and restraint of interstate commerce, and provides extra-judicial tribunals for determination and punishment of violations, and thus 'trenches upon the power of the national legislature and violates the statute.'

In FTC v. Cement Institute, [15] the Supreme Court relied on the FOGA case to support the proposition that restrictive practices that violate the Sherman Act violate § 5 of the FTC Act.

In Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., [16] the Supreme Court relied on the FOGA case to support the proposition: "Group boycotts, or concerted refusals by traders to deal with other traders, have long been held to be in the forbidden category. They have not been saved by allegations that they were reasonable in the specific circumstances, nor by a failure to show that they 'fixed or regulated prices, parcelled out or limited production, or brought about a deterioration in quality.' " In the Klor's case, the boycott was created when a retail store, Broadway-Hale, and ten household appliance manufacturers and their distributors agreed that the distributors would not sell household appliances (or would sell them only at discriminatory prices) to Broadway-Hale's small, nearby competitor, Klor's, a price-cutter. [17] The defendants submitted undisputed evidence that their agreement hurt only one competitor (Klor's) and that so many other nearby appliance-selling competitors remained that competition in the marketplace continued to thrive. [18] The Court held that this evidence was immaterial, because the conspiracy was "not to be tolerated merely because the victim is just one merchant." [19]

In American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp. , [20] the Supreme Court condemned the use of as standards-setting agency by some of its members to exclude competition. As in the FOGA case, the Court said: "ASME can be said to be 'in reality an extra-governmental agency, which prescribes rules for the regulation and restraint of interstate commerce.' "

In Nynex Corp. v. Discon, Inc., [21] the Supreme Court held that the per se rule against boycotts was limited to horizontal group boycotts. The Court said:

[T]he specific legal question before us is whether an antitrust court considering an agreement by a buyer to purchase goods or services from one supplier rather than another should (after examining the buyer's reasons or justifications) apply the per se rule if it finds no legitimate business reason for that purchasing decision. We conclude no boycott-related per se rule applies and that the plaintiff here must allege and prove harm, not just to a single competitor, but to the competitive process, i.e., to competition itself. [22]

The Court pointed to precedent: FOGA involved "a group boycott in the strongest sense: A group of competitors threatened to withhold business from third parties unless those third parties would help them injure their directly competing rivals." Klor's "also involved a horizontal agreement among those threatened, namely, the appliance suppliers, to hurt a competitor of the retailer who made the threat." Because the case before the Court "concerns only a vertical agreement and a vertical restraint, a restraint that takes the form of depriving a supplier of a potential customer," it was not within existing boycott precedent. [23]

Commentary

Wallace Kirkpatrick, an official of the Antitrust Division, writing shortly after the Supreme Court's decision in the FOGA case, pointed out the difference between Learned Hand's and Justice Black's respective approaches to boycotts against wrongdoers—persons committing criminal or tortious acts. [24] Judge Hand held that a boycott may be justified by the conduct of the person against whom the boycott is directed, even where the boycott was not a refusal to participate in unlawful acts. For instance, he said, it was justifiable for dress manufacturers to boycott retailers who got access to unpublished designs by a crime or a breach of contract, or who knowingly bought from a manufacturer who stole unpublished designs or copied them without the owner's consent. Justice Black, however, would not permit vigilante justice. He said that the fact that a person was engaged in tortious conduct would not allow a group to refuse in concert to deal with him and would not justify "combining together to regulate and restrain interstate commerce in violation of federal law." Kirkpatrick pointed out that the Supreme Court, but not Judge Hand, properly followed the principle that the Supreme Court had explained in United States v. American Livestock Comm'n Co., [25] which distinguished between joint refusals to participate in unlawful conduct and joint refusals to deal where "the wrong is completely independent of the dealings into which the combination refuses to enter." Kirkpatrick aligns himself with Black in saying that no private group has the right to "assum[e] the power to decide who is fitted to enter into business and what is a prerequisite for engaging in interstate commerce." [26]

Robert Merges observed of FOGA that the only important differences between it (and similar guilds) and a formal statutory IP right covering fashion designs were:

  1. the guilds were based on "an informal, inter-industry quasi-property right, rather than a formal statutory right";
  2. the guilds "required concerted action to achieve any appropriability"; and
  3. the guilds "concentrated [their] enforcement efforts at the retail level by requiring retailers to sign contracts and by policing retailers, rather than targeting competing manufacturers." [27]

In Merges's view, which is the diametric opposite of that of the Court in regard to "an extra-governmental agency which prescribes rules for the regulation and restraint of interstate commerce and provides extrajudicial tribunals for determination and punishment of violations," the FTC and Court made a mistake in condemning FOGA "out of hand" simply because it ran a boycott. Rather, the "Court should have considered whether the Guild tended to enhance economic efficiency,' and whether it did so at a lower cost than a formal property right in dress design." He would favor the Guild over a formal IPR [intellectual property right] granted by the state . . . [if] the combination of (1) enforcement at the retail level and (2) shared understandings about what qualifies as an 'original design' would make the system cheaper to administer than a formal, state-run system that created the same level of reward, and hence incentives." [28] He concludes that the Court's rejection of the FOGA scheme:

not only killed an interesting experiment in alternative intellectual property systems, but it also sent a far-reaching signal that when these systems are based on informal property rights, they are void per se. While this conclusion may be defensible in certain cases, it might have been better to establish a "rule of reason" analysis for private intellectual property systems. [29]

Like Kirkpatrick, Professors Hemphill and Suk noted the difference between Judge Hand's relatively tolerant attitude and reluctance to condemn the Guild, as contrasted with Justice Black's condemnation of its usurpation of legislative power in the final opinion of the Court. But they describe an early unpublished draft of the FOGA opinion, in which Justice Black gave careful substantive attention to the Guild's justification arguments, stating that "there is much force in petitioners' arguments" that a quasi-property right like that recognized in the INS case [30] could perhaps apply, but concluding that the principle was too difficult to confine within limits. A subsequent draft of the opinion adopts a suggestion by Justice Harlan Stone that the case should be disposed of "on the ground that self-help through boycott was impermissible, even to vindicate a legal right." [31]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">List price</span> Price that the manufacturer recommends for a retailer to charge

The list price, also known as the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), or the recommended retail price (RRP), or the suggested retail price (SRP) of a product is the price at which its manufacturer notionally recommends that a retailer sell the product.

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Dr Miles had ruled that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Leegin established that the legality of such restraints are to be judged based on the rule of reason.

Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), also referred to as the Danbury Hatters' Case, is a United States Supreme Court case in United States labor law concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectively outlawed the secondary boycott as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, despite union arguments that their actions affected only intrastate commerce. It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union.

The Fashion Originators Guild (FOGA) and its members made and sold medium– and high–priced, fashionable women's dresses to retailers, who select their purchases from designs exhibited in show rooms in New York City. The members made their dresses from their own "original designs." The designs were not protected by patents or copyrights, which are not available for clothing, and therefore other dress manufacturers made and sold unauthorized copies.

Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the law that fixing a maximum price was illegal per se. This rule was reversed in 1997 by State Oil Co. v. Khan, which held that maximum price-setting was not inherently anti-competitive and not always a violation of antitrust law, and should therefore be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason rather than a per se rule.

The unfairness doctrine is a doctrine in United States trade regulation law under which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can declare a business practice "unfair" because it is oppressive or harmful to consumers even though the practice is not an antitrust violation, an incipient antitrust violation, a violation of the "spirit" of the antitrust laws, or a deceptive practice.

The Parker immunity doctrine is an exemption from liability for engaging in antitrust violations. It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so. The doctrine is named for the Supreme Court of the United States case in which it was initially developed, Parker v. Brown.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket. The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court, holding that the defendant Singer violated the antitrust laws by conspiring with two European competitors to exclude Japanese sewing machine competition from the US market. Singer effectuated the conspiracy by agreeing with the two European competitors to broaden US patent rights and concentrate them under Sanger's control in order to more effectively exclude the Japanese firms. A further aspect of the conspiracy was to fraudulently procure a US patent and use it as an exclusionary tool. This was the first Supreme Court decision holding that exclusionary use of a fraudulently procured patent could be an element supporting an antitrust claim.

FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co., 344 U.S. 392 (1953), was a 1953 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, where exclusive output contracts used by one company "and the three other major companies have foreclosed to competitors 75 percent of all available outlets for this business throughout the United States" the practice is "a device which has sewed up a market so tightly for the benefit of a few [that it] falls within the prohibitions of the Sherman Act, and is therefore an 'unfair method of competition' " under § 5 of the FTC Act. In so ruling, the Court extended the analysis under § 3 of the Clayton Act of requirements contracts that it made in the Standard Stations case to output contracts brought under the Sherman or FTC Acts.

United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960), was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the so-called Colgate doctrine, which substantially insulates unilateral refusals to deal with price-cutters from the antitrust laws. The Parke, Davis & Co. case held that, when a company goes beyond "the limited dispensation" of Colgate by taking affirmative steps to induce adherence to its suggested prices, it puts together a combination among competitors to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court held that when a company abandons an illegal practice because it knows the US Government is investigating it and contemplating suit, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold the case that follows moot and dismiss it without granting relief sought against the illegal practice.

United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940), is a 1940 United States Supreme Court decision widely cited for the proposition that price-fixing is illegal per se. The Socony case was, at least until recently, the most widely cited case on price fixing.

United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), is the first case in which the United States Supreme Court held it a violation of the antitrust laws to refuse to a competitor access to a facility necessary for entering or remaining in the market. In this case a combination of firms was carrying out the restrictive practice, rather than a single firm, which made the conduct susceptible to challenge under section 1 of the Sherman Act rather than under the heightened standard of section 2 of that act. Even so, the case was brought under both sections.

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that is often cited as an example of a monopolization violation being based on unilateral denial of access to an essential facility although it in fact involved concerted action. When the Lorain Journal monopoly over advertising in the Lorain, Ohio, area was threatened by the establishment of a competing radio station, the newspaper's publisher refused to accept advertising from those who advertised over the radio station and required them to advertise only in the Journal. The purpose of the publisher was to eliminate the competition of the radio station. The Supreme Court held that the publisher had attempted to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and was properly enjoined from continuing its conduct.

A hub-and-spoke conspiracy is a legal construct or doctrine of United States antitrust and criminal law. In such a conspiracy, several parties ("spokes") enter into an unlawful agreement with a leading party ("hub"). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit explained the concept in these terms:

In a "hub-and-spoke conspiracy," a central mastermind, or "hub," controls numerous "spokes," or secondary co-conspirators. These co-conspirators participate in independent transactions with the individual or group of individuals at the "hub" that collectively further a single, illegal enterprise.

Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that a retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer was a per se illegal boycott – under a hub-and-spoke conspiracy theory.

United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided under what circumstances aesthetic elements of "useful articles" can be restricted by copyright law. The Court created a two-prong "separability" test, granting copyrightability based on separate identification and independent existence; the aesthetic elements must be identifiable as art if mentally separated from the article's practical use, and must qualify as copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works if expressed in any medium.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), affirming on other grounds 114F.2d80 ( 2d Cir. 1940).
  2. ↑ Other members were manufacturers, converters. or dyers of textiles from which these garments were made. 312 U.S. at 461.
  3. ↑ About a fourth of all women's dresses made in America sold for more than $10.75, and the Guild members in 1935 sold 42% of these. 312 U.S. at 461.
  4. ↑ 114 F.2d at 81–82. See Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Co., 35 F.2d 279, 281 (2d Cir. 1929) (Hand, J.) (copyright not available).
  5. ↑ 312 U.S. at 461.
  6. ↑ 312 U.S. at 463.
  7. ↑ Commission Holds Guild a Monopoly: Issues Complaint Against Body and Four Other Groups for Conspiracy, N.Y. Times, Apr. 21, 1936, at 42.
  8. 1 2 114 F.2d at 82.
  9. ↑ 114 F.2d 84–85.
  10. ↑ 312 U. S. 463–64.
  11. ↑ 312 U.S. at 464.
  12. ↑ 312 U.S. at 465.
  13. ↑ 312 U.S. at 467-68.
  14. ↑ Associated Press v. United States , 326 U.S. 1 (1945).
  15. ↑ FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683 (1948).
  16. ↑ Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. , 359 U.S. 207 (1959).
  17. ↑ 359 U.S. at 208—209.
  18. ↑ 359 U.S. at 209—210.
  19. ↑ 359 U.S. at 213.
  20. ↑ American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp. , 456 U.S. 556 (1982).
  21. ↑ Nynex Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998).
  22. ↑ 525 U.S. at 135.
  23. ↑ 525 U.S. at 135-36.
  24. ↑ W. Wallace Kirkpatrick, Commercial Boycotts As Per Se Violations of the Sherman Act, 10 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 387 (1942).
  25. ↑ United States v. American Livestock Comm'n Co., 279 U.S. 435 (1929) (dictum: concerted refusal to deal with cooperative would be legal if in fact merely a refusal to participate in an illegal course of conduct).
  26. ↑ Kirkpatrick, at 399-402.
  27. ↑ Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1293, 1364 (1996).
  28. ↑ Merges at 1364.
  29. ↑ Merges at 1365.
  30. ↑ See INS v. AP .
  31. ↑ C. Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk, The Fashion Originators' Guild of America: Self-Help at the Edge of IP and Antitrust [ permanent dead link ], at 18-19 (March 22, 2013).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.