{"id":35618,"date":"2024-07-21T01:00:01","date_gmt":"2024-07-21T08:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/?page_id=35618"},"modified":"2025-03-29T02:42:37","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T09:42:37","slug":"antitrust-and-free-markets-2024","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; custom_padding_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; admin_label=&#8221;Top Image and Title Section&#8221; module_class=&#8221;inner-banner-sec&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; background_image=&#8221;https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/court-header-2.jpg&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;120px||20px||false|false&#8221; custom_padding_tablet=&#8221;80px||20px||false|false&#8221; custom_padding_phone=&#8221;50px||||false|false&#8221; background_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; locked=&#8221;off&#8221; collapsed=&#8221;off&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_row module_class=&#8221;pstatic&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.0&#8243; custom_padding=&#8221;||||false|false&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;4_4&#8243; module_class=&#8221;pstatic&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.16&#8243; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_text admin_label=&#8221;Title&#8221; module_class=&#8221;leftborder&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; text_font=&#8221;|900|||||||&#8221; text_text_color=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; text_font_size=&#8221;29px&#8221; text_line_height=&#8221;1.1em&#8221; header_font=&#8221;|700||on|||||&#8221; header_text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; header_text_color=&#8221;#303030&#8243; header_font_size=&#8221;40px&#8221; header_line_height=&#8221;1.3em&#8221; header_2_font=&#8221;|700|||||||&#8221; header_2_text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_color=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; header_2_font_size=&#8221;27px&#8221; header_2_line_height=&#8221;1.25em&#8221; header_3_font=&#8221;|700|||||||&#8221; header_3_text_color=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; header_3_font_size=&#8221;27px&#8221; header_3_line_height=&#8221;1.2em&#8221; max_width=&#8221;700px&#8221; module_alignment=&#8221;left&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;||||false|false&#8221; custom_padding_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; custom_padding_phone=&#8221;20px||||false|false&#8221; custom_padding_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; hover_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243; text_font_size_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; text_font_size_phone=&#8221;20px&#8221; text_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; header_text_align_tablet=&#8221;left&#8221; header_text_align_phone=&#8221;left&#8221; header_text_align_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; header_font_size_tablet=&#8221;36px&#8221; header_font_size_phone=&#8221;30px&#8221; header_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; header_line_height_tablet=&#8221;1.3em&#8221; header_line_height_phone=&#8221;1.3em&#8221; header_line_height_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; header_2_text_align_tablet=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_align_phone=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_align_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; header_2_font_size_tablet=&#8221;32px&#8221; header_2_font_size_phone=&#8221;24px&#8221; header_2_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; header_3_font_size_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; header_3_font_size_phone=&#8221;21px&#8221; header_3_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; text_orientation_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; text_orientation_phone=&#8221;&#8221; text_orientation_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; header_2_text_shadow_style=&#8221;preset1&#8243; header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length=&#8221;2px&#8221; header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length=&#8221;2px&#8221; header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength=&#8221;2px&#8221; header_2_text_shadow_color=&#8221;#303030&#8243; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221; custom_css_main_element_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; sticky_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243;]<\/p>\n<h1>\u201cAntitrust and Free Markets\u201d<br \/>\n(By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)<\/h1>\n<p>[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; admin_label=&#8221;Dynamic TOC Sidebar + Content&#8221; module_class=&#8221;content-sidebar-sec&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;40px||60px||false|false&#8221; locked=&#8221;off&#8221; collapsed=&#8221;on&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_row column_structure=&#8221;1_4,3_4&#8243; make_equal=&#8221;on&#8221; admin_label=&#8221;Dynamic TOC Sidebar + Main Text Part 2&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;0px||0px||false|false&#8221; locked=&#8221;off&#8221; collapsed=&#8221;on&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;1_4&#8243; module_class=&#8221;sidebar-col&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_code admin_label=&#8221;Dynamic TOC Sidebar&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;]<\/p>\n<div class=\"sidebar-wrap\"><\/div>\n<p>[\/et_pb_code][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=&#8221;3_4&#8243; module_class=&#8221;sidebar-content-col&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;][et_pb_text admin_label=&#8221;Main Text, Part II&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.27.4&#8243; text_font=&#8221;||||||||&#8221; text_text_color=&#8221;#000000&#8243; text_font_size=&#8221;18px&#8221; header_2_font=&#8221;|700|||||||&#8221; header_2_text_align=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_color=&#8221;#000000&#8243; header_2_line_height=&#8221;1.2em&#8221; header_3_font=&#8221;|700||on|||||&#8221; header_3_text_color=&#8221;#000000&#8243; header_3_font_size=&#8221;30px&#8221; transform_translate_linked=&#8221;off&#8221; header_2_text_align_tablet=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_align_phone=&#8221;left&#8221; header_2_text_align_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; header_2_font_size_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; header_2_font_size_phone=&#8221;27px&#8221; header_2_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; text_orientation_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; text_orientation_phone=&#8221;&#8221; text_orientation_last_edited=&#8221;on|desktop&#8221; global_colors_info=&#8221;{}&#8221;]<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"1\">A Misplaced, Recurring Critique<\/h2>\n<p>Some critics of<span>\u00a0<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/overview-of-antitrust-law\/\">antitrust law<\/a><span>\u00a0<\/span>treat it as mere governmental overreach and an unwelcome infringement upon the ordinary operations of our free markets. Their refrain, it seems, is that each company should be left to do as it pleases in its markets with as little regulation as possible, or possibly without any regulation at all.<\/p>\n<p>That criticism betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the very term \u201cfree markets,\u201d which refers to markets that are free of<span>\u00a0<\/span><em>any<span>\u00a0<\/span><\/em>undue restraint, whether public or private. Indeed, antitrust law was established and exists specifically to protect markets from undue restraints imposed by either public authorities or private actors. Criticizing this law on the ground that it is an imposition on free markets omits consideration of the last part of the equation \u2013 protecting markets from indefensible private restraints.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"2\">The Origins of Antitrust: Redressing the Crown&#8217;s Monopoly Licenses (Letters Patent)<\/h2>\n<p>The origins of antitrust law clarify this very point. In England during the late 1500s, Queen Elizabeth abused her royal prerogative to grant letters patent &#8212; i.e., a royal grant of the exclusive right to sell or use something. Queen Elizabeth increasingly granted her patents to local traders of basic commodities. Each trader thus paid the Crown high fees and ongoing royalties in exchange for a patent, which granted him an exclusive concession to sell or license the sale of a specified commodity in a designated region (e.g., the sale of salt in southeastern England).<\/p>\n<p>Under each of these patents, only the designated trader and his licensees could sell the commodity in question within the designated territory.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_1');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[1]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_1\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally Ramsey, George (1936) &#8220;The Historical Background of Patents,&#8221; Journal of the Patent Office Society. Patent and Trademark Office Society; Pila, Justine (2001). &#8220;The&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_1');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Each such trader, having paid dearly for his exclusive concession, tended to exploit it and could successfully do so precisely because no other seller could undersell him or offer superior wares, more responsive service, or indeed any competition at all. Instead, each trader was protected from private competition by his patent. Thus protected, he could charge high prices for inferior wares and indifferent service.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_2');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[2]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_2\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Not every seller instantly oppressed his customers, but each seller gained the power to do so by his patent, and most tended sooner or later to abuse this power in various ways that would have been impossible if rival sellers had vied for sales and offered better prices, products, and services to win business.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_3');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[3]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_3\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>The Crown relished issuing its patents since by them it not only generated lucrative fees, but also gained the allegiance and support of loyal traders in every part of the kingdom. The traders and their licensees became rich or greatly increased their original wealth and enjoyed close ties to the Crown. But just about everyone else received a poor bargain. Those who supplied or worked for the exclusive traders received miserly pay in exchange for fulfilling their overbearing demands. Captive customers paid exorbitant prices for shoddy goods and poor service, which they were forced to accept for want of any alternative. If absolute political power tended to corrupt absolutely, so too did absolute local monopolies for every common article.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_4');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[4]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_4\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>That is how most businesses and people in Elizabethan England became beholden to monopolist traders. <em>They had no meaningful choice<\/em>. That circumstance is a feature of monopolistic economies, not a bug. Elizabethan England proved no exception. It teemed with underpaid dependents and overcharged, underserved customers.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_5');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[5]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_5\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Not surprisingly, the oppressive monopolies that gave Queen Elizabeth great riches and immense power also provoked widespread discontent among the populace. This circumstance in turn led to worsening civil strife, episodic riots, and their violent suppression from the late 1500s onward. Elizabeth herself died in 1604, largely indifferent to the calamites and hardships wrought by her inequitable monopolies. Her successor, the mercurial and combative King James VI, abused royal patents even more ardently than his predecessor had done, precipitating an epochal struggle between his Crown and an ascendant English Parliament, which emerged as a counterpoise to the English Crown and its claim of absolute power by divine right.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_6');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_6');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[6]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_6\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See <\/em>Hostettler, John (1997). <em>Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom<\/em>. Barry Rose Law Publishers.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_6').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_6', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Both the Crown and Parliament looked to the courts for relief. The Crown wanted them to administer the law and decide its claims in ways that would protect its prerogatives, while Parliament appealed to the courts to limit the Crown\u2019s powers and uphold its own laws even when the Crown proclaimed contrary edicts. Adding to the turmoil, different court systems competed with one another to fulfill this role, and they sometimes reached contrary conclusions on the same issues.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_7');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_7');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[7]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_7\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See id. The different court systems were the ecclesiastical courts (which decided religious questions), courts of common law (which decided legal claims), and courts of chancery (which decided&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_7');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_7').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_7', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"3\">Natural Rights, Restraint of Trade, and the Original Statute of Monopolies<\/h2>\n<p>The courts of common law eventually took the lead role, developing a series of related doctrines that form the bedrock of all liberal democracies. The doctrines in question addressed and elaborated upon <em>natural rights, the limits of governmental power, restraints of trade, patents, and copyrights<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>One jurist in particular played an indispensable role in the formulation of these foundational doctrines: the legendary Edward Coke (later, Lord Coke), who rose to prominence as an ambitious, enterprising, ruthless prosecutor of the Crown\u2019s ecclesiastical claims, but who was also famously incorruptible and both a masterful jurist and eloquent writer. By the twists and turns of his career, he eventually became Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas (the highest court of common law), where in the early 1600s he emerged as England\u2019s unlikely and original proponent of <em>natural rights<\/em> and<em> free markets<\/em> <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_8');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_8');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[8]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_8\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See &#8220;Wagner,<\/em> Coke and the Rise of Economic Liberalism,&#8221; 6 <em>Econ. Hist. Rev<\/em>. 30 (1935).<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_8').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_8', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Lord Coke&#8217;s most essential contribution to common-law jurisprudence was his doctrine on natural rights, which in turn he used to support his doctrines on free markets, monopolies, and patents. According to this doctrine, no monarch or other public body had any legitimate authority to impose a law or edict that infringed upon its citizens\u2019 natural rights. Rather, these rights were inalienable and included the right to life, liberty, and property. Any such right could be forfeited or compromised only on the basis of preexisting law applied to the accused by fair procedures, which must afford him full notice and an opportunity to be heard (due process).<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_9');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_9');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[9]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_9\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><em>See Hostettler, John (1997). Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom. Barry Rose Law Publishers.<\/em><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_9').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_9', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>Essential to this doctrine was that <em>markets and commerce should be free of undue restraint<\/em>. That was the meaning of free markets. According to Coke, any grant of monopoly by the Crown or any other body was presumptively an unjustified infringement upon each Englishman&#8217;s natural rights to practice a trade and to purchase goods from any merchant of his choosing. This presumption could be overcome only when the grant furthered the public interest, as was the case when a patent was given to protect the sale and use of a useful, non-obvious invention or work of genius, or when an exclusive franchise was granted to a private funder of a road, bridge, port, or common carrier. Patents thus encouraged scientific discovery, invention, and artistic creation, and franchise rights attracted investment in public goods.<\/p>\n<p>After leaving the Court of Common Pleas, Lord Coke became a leading member of Parliament, where he codified his legendary doctrines in the England&#8217;s original <em>Statute of Monopolies<\/em>, which was enacted in 1624. It nullified all of the Crown&#8217;s prior, existing, and future patents (monopoly concessions) and permitted monopolies only when authorized by his doctrines on patents and monopolies <span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_10');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_10');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[10]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_10\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See Coke, Against Monopolists, Propounders, and Projectors, Trin. 44 Eliz. lib. 11, f. 84, 85; le case de monopolies, 3 Inst. 181 (Subject to limited exceptions, \u201call grants of monopolies are&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_10');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_10').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_10', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>The Crown viscerally opposed and resisted these doctrines, while Parliament supported them. In consequence, England embarked upon a long period of civil strife and reform, which eventually and incrementally resulted in the modern constitution of its society: its Parliament makes the laws, but does so only after consulting the Crown, which sits as its head of state and representative to the rest of the world; and its courts decide whether any law infringes upon any natural right.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, similar progress was made in English political economy, as this topic was then called. In 1776, when the British colonies finally declared war against the Crown&#8217;s oppressive mercantilism, the legendary political economist Adam Smith published his opus on the <em>Wealth of Nations<\/em>, which postulated throughout that long-term prosperity and social comity are best promoted by self-interested competition between rival sellers and rival buyers. According to this view, each person is selfish by nature (even if magnanimous in countless instances). Rather than make futile, self-defeating attempts to change man&#8217;s nature by decree, it is better by far to induce each man to pursue his self-interest in ways that benefit society at large. That effort entails obliging each person engaged in commerce to compete against rivals, seeking to offer more attractive or less expensive goods or services that customers require or wish to purchase. According to Adam Smith, this approach leads to broader prosperity for the largest number and to the greatest possible long-term increase of a society&#8217;s overall wealth and political stability.<\/p>\n<p>Smith thus opposed both <em>public and private<\/em> acts that conferred monopoly privileges or restrained trade for the sake of private advantage or the gratuitous enrichment of a government. Relatedly, he opposed causeless restraints of (1) foreign imports and (2) English exports abroad. He also opposed English mercantilism, which he decried as a wasteful set of policies that were inimical to England&#8217;s lost-term prosperity. For Smith, all such measures enriched tiny groups (favored merchants and their special pleaders), but harmed everyone else.<\/p>\n<p>English and American jurists took note. By the early 1800s, American jurisprudence presumed that a public grant of monopoly was &#8220;obnoxious to the law&#8221; and therefore unenforceable, except in the following narrow circumstances:<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8212; Patent Rights:<\/em> A public body might lawfully give the owner of a novel, useful, non-obvious invention the exclusive right to sell or use it, but this right would expire after a stated duration, and the patentee must publicly disclose how his invention worked.<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8212; Copyrights:<\/em> A public body might lawfully give an author, composer, or other original creator the exclusive right to show, publish, copy, sell, or use his work, but this right expired after a stated duration.<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8212; Exclusive Franchise Rights:<\/em> A public body might authorize private actors to furnish public works and services and to charge the public for them (e.g., bridges, roads, ports, etc).<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8212; Professional Licensing Requirements:<\/em> A public body might regulate entry into a skilled trade or learned profession, admitting only those who met minimal qualifications. To this end, a public body might delegate this authority to a designated group of professionals or tradesmen in each skilled trade or learned profession.<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8212; General Regulation of<\/em> <em>Commerce<\/em>. A public body could use its legitimate police powers to regulate commerce conducted within its jurisdiction, but only in accordance with universal standards applicable to everyone.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_11');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_11');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[11]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_11\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See generally\u00a0Butchers\u2019 Union Slaughter-House &amp; Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing &amp; Slaughter-House Co., 111 U.S. 746, 763\u201364 (1884) (\u201cI do not mean to say&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_11');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_11').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_11', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"4\">Contracts and Combinations in Restraint of Trade<\/h2>\n<p>The courts of England and especially the United States also developed analogous doctrines that addressed <em>private restraints of trade. <\/em>Specifically, they condemned both <em>contracts and conspiracies in restraint of trade<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212; A <em>contract in restraint of trade<\/em> was one by which a covenantor (e.g., a seller of a business, a departing partner) agreed not to compete against a covenantee (e.g., the buyer of the business, a partnership).<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_12');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_12');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[12]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_12\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See United States v. Addyston Pipe &amp; Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 279 (6th Cir. 1898), aff\u2019d after modification on other ground, 175 U.S. 211 (1899) (\u201cFrom early times it was the policy of&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_12');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_12').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_12', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>Such a covenant was enforceable only so far as it was <em>ancillary<\/em> and <em>subordinate<\/em> to a legitimate transaction or collaboration &#8212; i.e., only so far as the restraint on the covenantor\u2019s right to compete did no more than afford reasonable protection of the covenantee\u2019s legitimate rights under the contract. For example, the seller of a business might lawfully agree not to compete against it, or a former partner might reasonably agree not to compete against his former partnership, but in both cases only for a limited duration and only to a limited extent. Any &#8220;general&#8221; or &#8220;unrestricted&#8221; agreement not to compete was always unenforceable even if it was somehow related to a legitimate transaction or collaboration.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_13');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_13');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[13]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_13\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See\u00a0Addyston Pipe &amp; Steel, 85 F. at 280-282 (offering extended explanation of these points and concluding that \u201cno conventional restraint of trade can be enforced unless the covenant embodying&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_13');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_13').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_13', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>&#8212; A <em>combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade<\/em> was one by which two or more sellers (or buyers) joined forces to seize control of an entire market or colluded against customers or suppliers by fixing prices or allocating markets. Any such combination or conspiracy was unlawful, and its acts were unenforceable.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_14');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_14');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_14\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[14]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_14\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 404 (1904) (\u201cCombinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade \u2026 were combinations to keep strangers to the agreement out of the business. The&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_14');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_14').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_14', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"5\">American Antitrust Law<\/h2>\n<p>American antitrust laws incorporated and reinvigorated these doctrines, proscribed the foregoing practices, and clarified that no private actor could seize control of an entire market by <em>naked design, <\/em>as occurs when two or more sellers combine their operations merely to gain substantial control over an entire market, or when a single seller becomes a monopolist by using business practices whose primary or only purpose is to impede or eviscerate rival sellers.\u00a0Rather, a monopoly would be deemed lawful only when acquired by <em>fortuity, practical necessity<\/em>, or <em>the monopolist&#8217;s own commercial excellence<\/em>.<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_15');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_15');\" ><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_15\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">[15]<\/span><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_15\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">See 36 Cong. Rec. 522 (Jan. 6, 1903) (\u201cWe undertook by law to clothe the courts with the power and impose on them and the Department of Justice the duty of preventing all combinations in restraint&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_35618_1('footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_15');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_15').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_35618_1_15', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n<p>In addition, American antitrust law treated restraints of trade and illicit monopolies not merely as unenforceable and subject to injunction, but also as civil and criminal offenses that carried onerous penalties.<\/p>\n<p>That was the origin and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/why-antitrust-laws-matter\/\">purpose of federal antitrust law<\/a>, as it was originally conceived.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"6\">Antitrust Law Protects Free Markets<\/h2>\n<p>Antitrust law thus exists precisely to protect free markets from undue restraints and illicit monopolization, whether imposed by a public body acting <em>ultra vires<\/em> or by private actors. This law is a corollary to our laws on patents and copyrights, which are best understood as narrow exceptions to the general rule that markets must remain free of public and private restraints. Critics of antitrust law would do well to remember its origins and to consider these points when debating its merits. Antitrust law is not antithetical to free markets, but rather exists to protect them from indefensible restraints.<\/p>\n<p>By William Markham, \u00a9 2022<\/p>\n<p>[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_35618_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_35618_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_35618_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_35618_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_1');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\">See generally<\/em><span style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\"> Ramsey, George (1936) &#8220;The Historical Background of Patents,&#8221; <\/span><em style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\">Journal of the Patent Office Society<\/em><span style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\">. Patent and Trademark Office Society; Pila, Justine (2001). &#8220;The common law invention in its original form,&#8221; <\/span><em style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\">Intellectual Property Quarterly<\/em><span style=\"color: #666666; font-size: 18px;\">.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_2');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_3');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_4');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_5');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See id<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_6');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>6<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See <\/em>Hostettler, John (1997). <em>Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom<\/em>. Barry Rose Law Publishers.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_7');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>7<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> <em>id.<\/em> The different court systems were the ecclesiastical courts (which decided religious questions), courts of common law (which decided legal claims), and courts of chancery (which decided equitable claims).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_8');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>8<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See &#8220;Wagner,<\/em> Coke and the Rise of Economic Liberalism,&#8221; 6 <em>Econ. Hist. Rev<\/em>. 30 (1935).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_9');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>9<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See Hostettler, John (1997). Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom. Barry Rose Law Publishers.<\/em><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_10');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>10<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See <\/em><i>Coke, Against Monopolists, Propounders, and Projectors, Trin. <\/i>44 Eliz. lib. 11, f. 84, 85;<i> le case de monopolies, <\/i>3 Inst. 181 (Subject to limited exceptions, \u201call grants of monopolies are against the ancient and fundamentall laws of this kingdome.\u201d); <em>see also <\/em>Williams, Ian (2006), &#8220;Dr. Bonham&#8217;s Case and &#8216;void&#8217; statutes,&#8221; <i>Journal of Legal History; <\/i>Boyer, Allen D. (2003); <em>Sir Edward Coke and the Elizabethan Age<\/em>. Stanford University Press.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_11');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>11<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">S<em>ee <\/em><em>generally<\/em>\u00a0<em>Butchers\u2019 Union Slaughter-House &amp; Live-Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing &amp; Slaughter-House Co.<\/em>, 111 U.S. 746, 763\u201364 (1884) (\u201cI do not mean to say that there are no exclusive rights which can be granted, or that there are not many regulative restraints on civil action which may be imposed by law. There are such. The granting of patents for inventions, and copyrights for books, is one instance already referred to. This is done upon a fair consideration, and upon grounds of public policy\u2026. So, an exclusive right to use franchises, which could not be exercised without legislative grant, may be given; such as that of constructing and operating public works, railroads, ferries, etc\u2026. So, licenses may be properly required in the pursuit of many professions and avocations which require peculiar skill or supervision for the public welfare\u2026. But this concession does not in the slightest degree affect the proposition \u2026 that the ordinary pursuits of life, forming the large mass of industrial avocations, are and ought to be free and open to all, subject only to such general regulations, applying equally to all, as the general good may demand; and the grant to a favored few of a monopoly in any of these common callings is necessarily an outrage upon the liberty of the citizen as exhibited in one of its most important aspects, \u2013 the liberty of pursuit. [S]uch a grant [is] beyond the legislative power, and contrary to the constitution\u2026.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_12');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>12<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See United States v. Addyston Pipe &amp; Steel Co.<\/em>, 85 F. 271, 279 (6th Cir. 1898), <em>aff\u2019d after modification on other ground<\/em>, 175 U.S. 211 (1899) (\u201cFrom early times it was the policy of Englishmen to encourage trade in England, and to discourage those voluntary restraints which tradesmen were often induced to impose on themselves by contract. Courts recognized this public policy by refusing to enforce stipulations of this character. The objections to such restraints were mainly two. One was that by such contracts a man disabled himself from earning a livelihood with the risk of becoming a public charge, and deprived the community of the benefit of his labor. The other was that such restraints tended to give the covenantee, the beneficiary of such restraints, a monopoly of the trade, from which he had thus excluded one competitor, and by the same mean might exclude others.\u201d); <em>id<\/em>. 85 F. at 280 (the principal objection to contracts was that covenantees used them to \u201creduce competition and create monopolies\u201d); <em>see also\u00a0Alger v. Thacher<\/em>, 19 Pick. 51, 54 (Mass., 1837) (\u201cThe unreasonableness of contracts in restraint of trade and business is very apparent from several obvious considerations: (1) Such contracts injure the parties making them, because they diminish their means of procuring livelihoods and a competency for their families. They tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions; and they expose such persons to imposition and oppression. (2) They tend to deprive the public of the services of men in the employments and capacities in which they may be most useful to the community as well as themselves. (3) They discourage industry and enterprise, and diminish the products of ingenuity and skill. (4) They prevent competition and enhance prices. (5) They expose the public to all the evils of monopoly; and this especially is applicable to wealthy companies and large corporations, who have the means, unless restrained by law, to exclude rivalry, monopolize business, and engross the market. Against evils like these, wise laws protect individuals and the public by declaring all such contracts void.\u201d);\u00a0<em>Mitchel v. Reynolds<\/em>, 1 P.Wms. 181, 190 (1711) (Parker, C.J.) (\u201cThe mischief which may arise from [such restraints of trade are] (1) to the party by the loss of his livelihood and the subsistence of his family; (2) to the public by depriving it of an useful member. Another reason is the great abuses these voluntary restraints are liable to; as, for instance, from corporations who are perpetually laboring for exclusive advantages in trade, and to reduce it into as few hands as possible.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_13');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>13<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See\u00a0<\/em><em>Addyston Pipe &amp; Steel<\/em>, 85 F. at 280-282 (offering extended explanation of these points and concluding that \u201cno conventional restraint of trade can be enforced unless the covenant embodying it is merely ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract, and necessary to protect the covenantee in the full enjoyment of the legitimate fruits of the contract, or to protect him from the dangers of an unjust use of those fruits by the other party.\u201d);\u00a0<em>see also\u00a0<\/em><em>Horner v. Graves<\/em>, 7 Bing. 735, 743, 131 Eng. Rep. 284 (1831) (\u201cAn agreement in general restraint of trade is illegal and void; but an agreement which operates merely in partial restraint of trade is good, provided it be not unreasonable, and there be a consideration to support it. In order that it may not be unreasonable, the restraint imposed must not be larger than is required for the necessary protection of the party with whom the contract is made. A contract, even on good consideration, not to use a trade anywhere in England is held void in that country as being too general a restraint of trade.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_14\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_14');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>14<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See N. Sec. Co. v. United States<\/em>, 193 U.S. 197, 404 (1904) (\u201cCombinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade \u2026 were combinations to keep strangers to the agreement out of the business. The objection to them was not an objection to their effect upon the parties making the contract, the members of the combination or firm, but an objection to their intended effect upon strangers to the firm and their supposed consequent effect upon the public at large. In other words, they were regarded as contrary to public policy because they monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, some portion of the trade or commerce of the realm.\u201d) (Holmes, J., dissenting on other grounds);\u00a0<em>United States v. E. C. Knight Co.<\/em>, 156 U.S. 1, 25 (1895) (\u201c[A] general restraint of trade has often resulted from combinations formed for the purpose of controlling prices by destroying the opportunity of buyers and sellers to deal with each other upon the basis of fair, open, free competition. Combinations of this character \u2026 have always been condemned as illegal because of their necessary tendency to restrain trade. Such combinations are against common right, and are crimes against the public.\u201d) (Harlan, J., dissenting on other grounds); Sir William Erle, Chief Judge of Court of Common Pleas,<em>\u00a0Law Relating to Trade Unions<\/em> 5-7 (1869) (\u201cRestraint of trade, according to a general principle of the common law, is unlawful\u2026. [A]t common law every person has individually, and the public also have collectively, a right to require that the course of trade should be kept free from unreasonable obstruction\u2026. \u201c[T]he right to a free course for trade is of great importance to commerce and productive industry, and has been carefully maintained by those who have administered the common law.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_35618_1_15\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_35618_1_15');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>15<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> 36 Cong. Rec. 522 (Jan. 6, 1903) (\u201cWe undertook by law to clothe the courts with the power and impose on them and the Department of Justice the duty of preventing all combinations in restraint of trade. It was believed that the phrase \u2018in restraint of trade\u2019 had a technical and well-understood meaning in the law.\u201d) (statement of Senator Hoar, co-drafter of the Sherman Act); Albert H. Walker,\u00a0<em>History of the Sherman Law of the United States of America<\/em>\u00a0 (1910) (digitized by Google) at 14 (\u201c[W]hat is this bill? A remedial statute to enforce, by civil process in the courts of the United States, the common law against monopolies. How is such a law to be construed ? Liberally, with a view to promote its object.\u201d) (Senator Sherman, co-drafter and principal sponsor, addressing Congress); <em>Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader<\/em>, 310 U.S. 469, 497 (1940) (\u201cThe common law doctrines relating to contracts and combinations in restraint of trade were well understood long before the enactment of the Sherman law. They were contracts for the restriction or suppression of competition in the market, agreements to fix prices, divide marketing territories, apportion customers, restrict production and the like practices, which tend to raise prices or otherwise take from buyers or consumers the advantages which accrue to them from free competition in the market. Such contracts were deemed illegal and were unenforcible [sic] at common law. But the resulting restraints of trade were not penalized and gave rise to no actionable wrong. Certain classes of restraints were not outlawed when deemed reasonable, usually because they served to preserve or protect legitimate interests, previously existing, of one or more parties to the contract.\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_35618_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_35618_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_35618_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_35618_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_35618_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_35618_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_35618_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_35618_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_35618_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_35618_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_35618_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_35618_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_35618_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_35618_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cAntitrust and Free Markets\u201d (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)A Misplaced, Recurring Critique Some critics of\u00a0antitrust law\u00a0treat it as mere governmental overreach and an unwelcome infringement upon the ordinary operations of our free markets. Their refrain, it seems, is that each company should be left to do as it pleases in its markets with as little [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":48,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"<div class=\"maincontent\">\r\n\r\n\u201cWhat is the best way to win a lawsuit?\u201d The question, I suppose, has as many answers as there are lawyers. The wiser litigators, humbled by experience and the wiser for it, will rightly tell you that there is no one successful approach to litigating a case, and that each litigator must cultivate his own style and methods, making the most of his natural strengths and the best of his besetting weaknesses.\r\n\r\nIf I had to answer the query in a single paragraph, I would say the following: a good litigator is one who has a solid command if not a mastery of the laws that govern the kind of dispute he means to litigate. He must then patiently listen to his client, taking in all the varied details of the case. He must then re-state this case, so that it is told in the way most likely to appeal to a disinterested listener\u2019s sense of fairness, and so that the governing laws can be applied to the case in the manner that is most helpful to the client. This is the underlying strategy, which should be formulated at the outset of the litigation, but perhaps revised as the litigation proceeds. In addition to this strategy, the good litigator will have an excellent understanding of civil procedures and the law of evidence, which he will use to gather the evidence he needs to prove that his own characterization of the case is the best explanation, the most plausible explanation, the most likely truth. He will thus gather evidence, organize it, and present it adroitly, while using procedures and evidence to discredit or exclude his adversary\u2019s evidence. In addition a good litigator must be thick-skinned, extremely hard-working, well-organized and supported by a capable staff. Lastly, he must have a sense of justice and never give the appearance of arguing in favor of an oppressive or unfair position. Do all these things well, and you will have become a masterful litigator.\r\n<h3>The First Principles<\/h3>\r\nTo litigate well, it is necessary first to grasp the first principles of the legal profession: Ask first, what is a lawyer? What he is supposed to do? The answer is not so difficult for us practitioners to provide: a lawyer is one who is trained in the legal principles and procedures of his jurisdiction or perhaps those of more than one jurisdiction, and who uses his training to advise his clients about their transactions and represent them in legal proceedings, or, to state the matter more exactly, who uses his training to perform the following tasks for his clients:\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li>Advise his client about the laws and their possible or certain effect on his liberty, property, business dealings, and other matters. \u00a0This work concerns legal consultations, which lawyers can give according to their expertise in different practice areas.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Negotiate and prepare the contracts and legal forms by which his clients protect their property and interests as well as pursue projects and ventures. \u00a0This work is often called \u201ctransactional work,\u201d and again is performed by lawyers according to their expertise in different practice areas.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Represent clients in legal disputes, i.e., legal conflicts that are resolved by rule of law, which in particular means the rule of law of the jurisdiction where the dispute is litigated. \u00a0This work is called \u201clitigation\u201d or \u201ctrial work,\u201d and again can be performed by lawyers in different kinds of cases according to their expertise in different practice areas, but every litigator must have a thorough understanding of the law of evidence and the rules of civil procedure followed by the courts in which he tries cases.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nSo-called \u201ctransactional attorneys\u201d are supposed to specialize in the first two kinds of work (consultations and performing transactions), while so-called \u201clitigators\u201d or \u201ctrial attorneys\u201d are supposed to specialize in the third kind of work (representing clients in disputes that are mediated, litigated or arbitrated). \u00a0A good transactional attorney must have a thorough understanding of how a lawsuit proceeds, so that each of his transactions usefully protects the client as much as possible from the hazards of the different kinds of litigation that might one day arise from the transaction, and likewise a good litigator must have a thorough understanding of the substantive laws that govern the underlying controversy, or else he is operating in the dark, relying solely on his tactical skill or mastery of evidence or perhaps his photogenic charm, but without a fundamental understanding of what the law has to say about the subject at hand.\r\n\r\nFrom this I conclude that in the first instance a good litigator will be able to say at the outset of the case, \u201chere is what the law says about this kind of controversy, here are the arguments we can make in support of our position, here are the arguments we can expect our adversary to make, and here are the different possible outcomes\u201d.\r\n\r\nThis in turn presupposes that the litigator correctly recognizes what sort of controversy he has been asked to litigate. \u00a0He must grasp the essentials of the case at the outset, when it matters it most. The client in nine cases of out ten does not know, nor should be expected to know how to state his own controversy, but perhaps understands only that his dealings with the adversary have gone horribly askew, and that the adversary was dishonest or oppressive during this course of a dealing in a way that has since proved ruinous. The lawyer must therefore listen very attentively to the client and patiently take note of everything the client has to say about his own circumstances.\r\n<h3>Developing the Underlying Strategy<\/h3>\r\nUsing his understanding of both the law and the facts at hand, the litigator must strive to recognize how best to summarize or characterize the client\u2019s situation, so that the existing laws (or some variation on them) can be applied as usefully and favorably as possible to the situation that he has thus re-characterized. This is the essential work of a litigator \u2013 the initial conception of how to articulate and argue the case. Do this work poorly, and all your ensuing efforts, no matter how exhaustive and strenuous, will be misguided and off the mark. Do this work skillfully, and you will have charted a successful strategy, which now awaits only your diligence and tenacity in the implementation.\r\n\r\nSo now we have two related tasks that in my estimation determine how well a litigator can handle any given case: Having a thorough understanding of the laws that govern the kind of dispute at hand, and striving to characterize the dispute in the most helpful possible manner, so that the applicable laws can be applied to the dispute thus characterized in such a way as seems most likely to lead to the best possible result for the client under the circumstances. This is not easy work, especially if the opposing lawyer is doing precisely the same thing, but in the opposite direction.\r\n\r\nBut even if a litigator performs this initial work with unmatched talent, he will not succeed unless he is (1) proficient in civil procedures and the law of evidence, (2) thick-skinned and able to thrive amid controversy, and (3) perseverant.\r\n<h3>Civil Procedures and Evidence<\/h3>\r\nYou cannot state your case well if you do not have an excellent grasp of the civil procedures that are followed in the forum where the case is being litigated. Some attorneys perhaps place too much stock in the mastery of these details, which makes them masters of tactics, but all too often at the expense of having a successful underlying strategy. Nevertheless, a good litigator must have a very firm grasp of the procedures, and he should always review them at each stage of the case, if only to brush up and confirm his own exact understanding of them.\r\n\r\nAs for evidence, it is the \u201cbricks and mortar\u201d of a case: If you don\u2019t have any, you have no case to build. The strategy is the telling of the client\u2019s story and the application of the law to this story, thus told. But this story, or version of events, must be proven by evidence, or else you are merely bellowing in the wind, or recounting a tissue of lies that your cagey opponent will expose as a sham. You must have evidence to support your case, or you have no case at all.\r\n\r\nFrom this it follows that you must know how to use civil procedures to obtain evidence, and then you must have an excellent system in order to organize and present the evidence, and lastly of course you must know the laws of evidence so that you can have yours admitted and your adversary\u2019s discredited or even perhaps excluded.\r\n\r\nThese then are the essential tactics of successful litigation: The gathering, organization, presentation, admission, refutation, impeachment and exclusion of evidence. I think it usually takes a good litigator at least a decade of active practice to become reasonably proficient at these skills.\r\n\r\nWithout these basic skills of litigation, all the rest is so much wasted effort. This said, I repeat that you will almost never win your case merely by an astute manipulation of evidence and procedures. Some lawyers seem to think otherwise. To me they are tacticians who lack a winning strategy. But no litigation strategy, no matter how brilliant, has any prospect of success unless you can skillfully use procedures to gather evidence that you can then present in a convincing manner at trial.\r\n<h3>Restatement of the Essentials<\/h3>\r\nSo now I have boiled it down to an underlying strategy and necessary tactics. A sound <em>litigation strategy<\/em> requires (1) an excellent understanding of the substantive law that governs the kind of matter your client presents to you; and (2) a helpful, accurate summarization of the case as well as a sound application of the governing law to the case so that its probable outcome will be as favorable as possible to the client. <em>Litigation tactics<\/em> principally refer to the skillful use of civil procedures and rules of evidence in order to conduct discovery, obtain and organize evidence, use it to prove your points, and impeach or exclude your adversary\u2019s evidence when appropriate.\r\n<h3>A Thick Skin Is Best<\/h3>\r\nThere are other attributes that are likewise indispensable to a successful trial lawyer: you must be thick-skinned and able to withstand the derision and insults of your adversary, as well as the indifference or apparent disapproval of an unimpressed judge. If insulting comments or gestures affect you too much, you should not become a litigator, as your whole life you will find yourself insulted, openly and subtly, by your adversaries. Some will mean it in earnest after genuinely concluding that you are a pitiful, hapless lawyer, or perhaps only a green novice whom they can outfox at every turn. At least from them you can learn something, as each of us can always draw some benefit from any criticism, even if it serves only to a shed a little light on the one making the criticism. Others still will deride you because in truth they are alarmed by your apparent skill and ability, or by the strength of your case, and some will try to put you down and discourage you before you succeed at your task, which they fear you have begun in an excellent way. Others still, at the end of the case, will become angry with you over the successful results you have gotten for your client. You have to be able to shrug it off in a moment and rise above the fray, or else you will be angry or intimidated and likely an unhappy camper your entire working life. A good litigator will take the long view and the high road for living well, never nursing a grudge and never holding a resentment. Fight as hard as you can for as long as you must to win for your client, but never let the poison of rancor sully your countenance or becloud your judgment.\r\n<h3>Toil and Sweat, if not Blood<\/h3>\r\nIn addition to all the rest, you <em>must<\/em> be perseverant. The law is not a place for the idle. If you do not work very hard on your cases, and if you are not a very diligent, tireless sort of person who takes initiatives, you are employed in the wrong line of work. For the indolent lawyer, it is only a matter of time before he is embarrassed and his client harmed by his more assiduous, harder-working adversaries. Litigation is best done by those who are natural beavers, laboring away as a matter of course because that it is how work in the world gets done.\r\n\r\nThere are two further considerations that deserve special mention -- the importance of good organization and the justice of your cause. I explain these points below.\r\n<h3>The Importance of Organization<\/h3>\r\nEach successful litigation is always a <em>well-organized effort<\/em>. You must have your dates properly calendared and meet all of your deadlines (preferably well within time). \u201cLast-minute\u201d guerilla warfare might seem colorful, but\u00a0 is often disastrous in the practice. A good lawyer will know what tasks he must do and by when, and he must be certain to meet his deadlines by starting each task well in advance of its deadline. For every appearance and each appointment, the litigator must arrive prepared, with all his necessary papers or information within easy reach, and with all necessary people in attendance or available at a moment\u2019s notice. This in turn requires the skillful use of task lists, deadline lists, a litigation calendar \u2013 a system of organization in short. Computer programs have made this work much easier. Even so, there is no substitute for an excellent assistant or team of assistants, who help the litigator to organize the effort. Behind every successful litigator you will find a competent support staff.\r\n<h3>The Justice of Your Cause<\/h3>\r\nLast, and most important of all, a litigator must be a champion of <em>just causes<\/em>. Even if your client has apparently committed a legal wrong, you might become a champion of <em>due process <\/em>and <em>fair procedures<\/em> or perhaps an advocate who argues against an <em>unfair rush to condemn <\/em>or <em>overzealous punishment that is an excessive, oppressive reaction to the wrong committed.\r\n\r\n<\/em>In antitrust cases, which I often litigate, the just cause is often to explain why a dominant company's business practices have undermined competition, allowing that company to overcharge and under-serve customers while harming competitors' businesses in ways that stifle innovation and render customers its mere captives. If left unchecked, such companies tend become so large in size, so few in number, and so dominant in their respective markets,\u00a0 that they inevitably acquire great social and political advantages. When such companies dominate our markets, they tend to undermine not only these markets and our economy, but also our political institutions and larger society. More generally, we want businesses to succeed by offering better products and services or lower prices, not by using dirty tricks whose real purpose is to prevent other businesses from competing against them. When a company uses such tactics to prevent marketwide competition, it should be condemned as an antitrust violator.\u00a0 At the same time we do not want windfall opportunists to litigate spurious, contrived antitrust claims against excellent companies that have succeeded the time-honored way -- by offering great goods or services at the lowest possible prices. That are the kinds of \"just causes\" that I personally relish presenting, but in every case there is a just cause if you look for it and present it fairly.\r\n<em>\r\n<\/em>If the role of the litigator is to represent his client in a legal dispute, he must remember that the laws exist to try to promote and further the ends of justice and equity. The governing law of any given topic is usually the imperfect, cumulative effort of legislators and judges to figure out the most sensible, fair way to dispose of the controversies and contested issues that have come before them. Statutes and case decisions are the means by which they do this work, and the judge in each case will be influenced by the circumstances and posture of the litigants as well as by the arguments made by their advocates.\r\n\r\nAlways try to show why for the sake of fairness you client must win. You should never openly adopt an oppressive position. Every one in the room will look for some way to derail your merciless scheme, even if the letter of the law favors you on all fours. Plead justice, plead fairness, and show that both require that your client obtain relief. This should be part of your characterization of the case and indeed the foundation on which the rest of your case is built.\r\n\r\nSometimes it is hard to explain why fairness and equity favor your client\u2019s cause. \u00a0Try putting yourself in your client\u2019s shoes, or, as the old saying would have it, \u201ctry to walk a mile in his shoes\u201d before attempting to state his case. This necessary work will allow you to state difficult cases with eloquence and conviction, and, when you represent a defendant, it will also tell you when you should seek to settle a case that you cannot have dismissed before trial. In some cases it is only too easy to explain why fairness and equity require a judgment for your client, if only you will make the effort to connect the simple dots. Lawyers must have sufficient detachment to assess and litigate their cases skillfully, but detachment does not mean \u201cvoid of all meaningful human emotion.\u201d A lawyer must be the champion of his client\u2019s cause, and this means that at times he must convincingly explain how his client has suffered because of the adversary\u2019s villainy. A trial lawyer is not a dry bureaucrat, but much more like a movie director of a documentary, which he presents live to a group of people who above all wish to do the right thing now that they have been dragged into the proceeding and forced to sit in a box to listen to the dispute for days on end. First our director gives an opening statement \u2014 i.e., an overview of what he plans to show by testimony, documents, video clips and demonstrations. Then he presents this evidence. Then he gives his summation \u2014 i.e., he explains what it all means in light of the controlling law that the judge explains to the jury. All the while his adversary is doing the same thing, and each seeks when possible to discredit the other\u2019s points. It has been my view that a lawyer cannot do this work well unless he has empathy, common decency, and a profound sense of justice, even if he must always remain professional and not allow his indignation to interfere with good judgment.\r\n\r\nArticle by <a href=\"[url]\/our-team\/william-markham\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">William Markham<\/a>, San Diego Attorney. \u00a9 2006.\r\n<ul class=\"checklist\">\r\n \t<li><a href=\"[url]\/articles\/\">Back to Articles<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-35618","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.8 (Yoast SEO v24.8.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Antitrust and Free Markets<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-29T09:42:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1917\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1074\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/\",\"name\":\"Antitrust and Free Markets\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-21T08:00:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-29T09:42:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Articles\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\",\"name\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\",\"description\":\"Trial and Appellate Attorneys in San Diego\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp\",\"width\":1917,\"height\":1074,\"caption\":\"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Antitrust and Free Markets","description":"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)","og_description":"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly","og_url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/","og_site_name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/","article_modified_time":"2025-03-29T09:42:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1917,"height":1074,"url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/","name":"Antitrust and Free Markets","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-07-21T08:00:01+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-29T09:42:37+00:00","description":"Classical antitrust law aims to protect free markets from undue private restraints of trade and ill-bestowed public grants of monopoly","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/antitrust-and-free-markets-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Articles","item":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/law-articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Antitrust and Free Markets (By William Markham, \u00a9 2022)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/","name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","description":"Trial and Appellate Attorneys in San Diego","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#organization","name":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en","@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/sandiego-harbor-2.webp","width":1917,"height":1074,"caption":"LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C."},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawOfficesofWilliamMarkhamPC\/"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/35618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/35618\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}