Opinion ID: 286502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act

Text: 21 The district court concluded that the defendant violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, in that it had attempted to monopolize sales in 'similar products' manufactured by the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant had 'attempted to accomplish a temporary monopoly' over such sales. 22 Section 2 of the Sherman Act proscribes an attempt 'to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.' Judge Learned Hand succinctly stated the elements of a Section 2 violation: 'In order to fall within 2, the monopolist must have both the power to monopolize, and the intent to monopolize.' United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945). There is no evidence whatever to indicate that the defendant's conduct in publishing the comparison sheet manifested an intent to monopolize. Absent also is any evidentiary basis for holding that the defendant possessed the power to monopolize. Moreover, there is no proof of what constituted the relevant market. Without such a determination, the question of a monopoly or an attempt to accomplish such a goal could in no manner be meaningfully answered. A definition of the relevant market is an essential element of a violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). 23 The judgment of the district court is reversed.