Search

This article offers information on various court cases on antitrust policy under Judge John Roberts in the U.S. In such cases, Roberts competently assess claims of commercial predation and expresses its fears on the cost of erroneous findings. In Twombly case, the Court is skeptical about the ability of lower courts to resists drawing "false inferences" in lawsuits involving charges of tacit collusion among oligopolists while in Credit Suisse, Roberts doubts the ability of tribunals to refrain from making unusually serious mistakes. Discussed are the details of the issue.

This article provides information on the development of the case of Texaco v. Dagher. The Supreme Court has stated in Dagher that it is not unlawful price-fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act 2 for a fully-integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its own products. According to the author, the plaintiffs-respondents that there was more to the case than appears from the Court's opinion, contrary to what might appear from the opinion, the respondents did in fact file a brief in the Supreme Court.

This article presents a perspective on the case of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. The structure of the decision of the court reflects its focus on policy. After determining that Dr. Miles is bad antitrust policy, the Court concluded that considerations of "stare decisis" do not require a different result. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy posed the question as whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason.