Source: http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/government/372US253.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:58:50+00:00

Document:
NO. 54.  ARGUED JANUARY 14-15, 1963.  - DECIDED MARCH 4, 1963.  - 194 F.
SHOULD BE DETERMINED ONLY AFTER A TRAIL.  PP. 254-264.
ARE NOT APPROPRIATE "WHERE MOTIVE AND INTENT PLAY LEADING ROLES."
POLLER V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, 368 U.S. 464.  PP. 259-261.
CONCLUSION ON THE BARE BONES OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE IT.
WHITE MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF APPROPRIATE, SHALL BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM."
BUSINESS AND/OR PURCHASING HEADQUARTERS IN SAID TERRITORY."
IS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY COMPANY IN WRITING."
U.S. 858.  SEE 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29.
TRUCKS AND NOT FOSTER SUCH COMPETITION."
OTHER TRUCK MANUFACTURERS, ARE NOT TO BE SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZED."
RULE AT TIMES CAN BE DIVINED WITHOUT A TRIAL.
ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT BEYOND ITS TERMS.  MERCOID CORP. V.
THEIR NATURE, EXTENT, AND DEGREE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY.
SCHEME ARE ALSO QUITE PROPERLY RESTRAINED.  SUCH WAS UNITED STATES V.
NOT THE FACTS WOULD PERMIT ONE WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE.
FIXING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO TRUCK SALES TO ULTIMATE PURCHASERS.
WE ARE ASKED TO EXTEND THE HOLDING IN TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO. V.
MANUFACTURER RESTRICTING THE TERRITORY OF HIS DISTRIBUTORS OR DEALERS.
CONCLUSION ON THE BARE BONES OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE US.
COURT TO INTERPRET FACTS AND TO PREDICT CONSEQUENCES."
STATES, 370 U.S. 294, 330.
CONCERTED REFUSALS BY TRADERS TO DEAL WITH OTHER TRADERS" (KLOR'S V.
COMPETITION AND LACK  ..  ANNY REDEEMING VIRTUE" (NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.
PER SE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.
MERGER WILL TEND "SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION" (BROWN SHOE CO.
DETERMINED ONLY AFTER A TRIAL.  REVERSED.
SELLS DIRECTLY TO DEALERS INSTEAD."
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS FIXING RESALE PRICES WERE UNLAWFUL.
FN3  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
PRECISE HARM THEY HAVE CAUSED OR THE BUSINESS EXCUSE FOR THEIR USE."
TO WHICH WE HAVE HELD A PER SE TEST CLEARLY APPROPRAITE.
EXCUSE FOR RESORT TO THESE PRACTICES.
CONCLUSION THAT TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS ARE INVARIABLY UNLAWFUL.
SUIT, AND OF THE PARTICULAR SANCTIONS BY WHICH THEY ARE ENFORCED.
SUCH CUSTOMER RESTRICTIONS CAN BE JUSTIFIED.
THEIR INVALIDITY WOULD SEEM TO BE APPARENT.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
IN ANY EVENT BE UNABLE TO COMPETE.
FOUND TO STIFLE COMPETITION.  THESE JUSTIFICATIONS ARE OF THREE TYPES.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUCKS TO MEET CUSTOMERS' PECULIAR REQUIREMENTS."
PROTECT AGAINST UNSATISFACTORY DISTRIBUTOR SERVICING.
SEEMS TO ME, THE ANTITRUST LAWS WOULD NOT PERMIT, CF. EASTMAN KODAK CO.
DOES NOT ALWAYS CHARGE THE LOWEST PRICES.
COMPETE FOR THE RESERVED ACCOUNTS.
U.S. 150, 224, N. 59, AT 226.
V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238.
RESTRICTIONS REMAIN REASONABLE IF ITS SHARE OF THE MARKET INCREASES?
'REASONABLENESS' OF ANY PARTICULAR SET OF TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS.
COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ANTITRUST LAWS (1955), 26.
MARKETING OF GOODS, 45 CORNELL L.Q. 254, 267-268 (1960).
RESTRICTED SALES AREAS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 9 U.C.L.A.L.  REV.
COMPARE, E.G., PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. V. WEBSTER MOTOR CAR CO., 100 U.S.
COLUMBUS COATED FABRICS CORP., 55 F.T.C. 1500, 1503-1504.
SHERMAN ACT, 75 HARV. L. REV. 795, 814-816 (1962).
RESTRICTIVE EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V.
AREA, NOT THAT HE MUST STAY OUT OF OTHER AREAS.  SEE GENERALLY 60 MICH.
RESTRICTED CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, 75 HARV. L.
THE GOVERNMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AN EXCERPT ENTITLED "ARGUMENT"
THE SHERMAN ACT THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
TERRITORY AGAINST SELLING THEREIN BY DEFENDANT'S OTHER DISTRIBUTORS ..
COMPETITION WITH THE WHITE MOTOR COMPANY'S POWERFUL COMPETITORS."
THE DISTRIBUTOR-DEALER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WHICH IT PRESENTLY FOLLOWS.
HAVE PROPER PURPOSES AND EFFECTS AND ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE  ..  .""
TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 467-468 (1941), AND NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. V.
"ARGUMENT" IS TO ENABLE IT TO COMPETE WITH ITS "POWERFUL COMPETITORS"
DEALERS" AND THUS PREVENT THEM FROM "CUTTING EACH OTHER'S THROATS."
OWN TERRITORY.  HE IS CONFINED TO HIS OWN ECONOMIC ISLAND.
WHO SUPPLY THE PUBLIC, IS MADE IMPOSSIBLE."  JOHN D. PARK & SONS CO. V.
..  ITT IS NOT DISCOVERABLE."  IBID.
THEMSELVES, SUCH AS WERE CONDEMNED IN TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO. V.
THAT IT WAS THE RESULT OF MERE CHANCE."
RESTRICTIONS HAVE A "PERNICIOUS EFFECT ON COMPETITION AND LACK  ..
332 U.S. 319 (1947)(TYING ARRANGEMENTS); TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO. V.
STATES, 355 U.S. 10 (1957), AFFIRMING 156 F. SUPP. 800 (D.C.D. KAN.
COMMERCE ON AUTOMOBILE MARKETING LEGISLATION, 84TH CONG., P. 285.
THEY SELL."  DR. MILES MEDICAL CO., SUPRA, AT 407-408.  AND, MR.
COMPLAINANT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ITS SYSTEM."
ADVANTAGE MAY BE DERIVED FROM COMPETITION IN THE SUBSEQUENT TRAFFIC."
TODAY THE COURT DOES A FUTILE ACT IN REMANDING THIS CASE FOR TRIAL.
THESE CONTRACTS ELIMINATE COMPETITION AND UNDER OUR CASES ARE VOID.
ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM POSED HERE, I.E., THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RECORD.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.