Document: 391 U.S. 244 88 S.Ct. 1496 20 L.Ed.2d 562 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION. No. 597. Argued April 1, 1968. Decided May 20, Donald F. Turner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Ralph M. Carson, New York City, appellee. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In 1953, in a civil suit brought by United States, District Court Massachusetts held that appellee had violated § 2 Sherman Antitrust Act monopolizing manufacture shoe machinery. The court found '(1) defendant has, and exercises, such overwhelming strength machinery market it controls market, (2) this excludes some potential, limits actual, competition, (3) is not attributable solely to defendant's ability, economies scale, research, natural advantages, adaptation inevitable economic laws.' States v. Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295, 343 (1953). did order relief requested Government—that be dissolved into three separate manufacturing companies. Rather, imposed variety restrictions conditions designed 'to recreate competitive market.'1 Appellee appealed Court, which affirmed decision Corp. 347 521, 74 699, 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954). decree entered on February 18, subsequently modified July 12 September 17, 1954, provided paragraph 18 that: 3 'On (January 1965) both parties shall report effect decree, may then petition its modification, view establishing workable competition. If either party takes advantage filing petition, each accompanied affidavits setting forth structure power within market.' F.Supp., at 354. 4 Pursuant provision, Government reported January 1965, continued dominate competition been established additional was accordingly necessary. asked required submit plan, pursuant United's business would reconstituted so as form two fully competing companies market. It also 'such other further necessary establish 5 after hearing, denied Government's petition.2 under Swift & Co., 286 106, 52 460, 76 999 (1932), modify original limited cases involving clear showing grievous wrong evoked new unforeseen conditions.' 266 328, 330 (1967). Analyzing 1953 amended, said object 'not restore so-called but move toward it,' 'the has operated manner with intended. put motion forces which, aided technology, have eroded already dissipated much monopolization.' 330, 334. Accordingly, stringent requirements construed decision, petition. 6 From We noted probable jurisdiction. 389 967, 469, 19 458 reverse. I. 7 misconceived thrust Court's Swift. That case no way restricts grant present case. Swift, consent 1920 order-in measure divestitute imposing restraints upon meat packers. 1930, various unsuccessful attempts secure modification or vacation packers filed adapt needs day,' Cardozo phrased it. U.S., 113, 462. lower granted appealed. This reversed. emphasized equity an injunction changed though consent.' Id., 114, S.Ct., question, held, 'whether enough shown justify exercise.' 115, After reviewing evidence, concluded danger monopoly elimination led initial government complaint removed that, although respects effectuated, there still unlawful trade. language, quoted relied trial here, 'nothing less than should lead us change,' id., 119, must, course, read light context. teaches appropriate showing, holds interests defendants if purposes litigation incorporated (the restrictive practices) achieved. 8 obverse situation allegations are proved. Here, claims provisions were specifically achieve establishment 'workable competition' means failed accomplish result. Because time experience demonstrated fact, according Government, seeks decree. Nothing precludes this. sought escape their impact. we conclude erred denying 'on authority 460 (76 999).' II. 9 Decision must based specific facts circumstances presented. urging affirmance advised framing 'proceeded premise relatively mild remedies tried first resort, possibility more drastic measures abeyance.' Brief 394, Term, 155. Paragraph appeared confirmation statement since expressly 10 years contemplated petitions might 'in decree's) competition.' any 'affidavits market.'3 These specifications peculiarly apt because shaped response findings monopolization purpose eliminate domination made beyond question beginning section dealing relief. follows: 11 'Where monopolized commerce violation 2, principal objects decrees extirpate practices caused hereafter cause monopolization, 346—347. course case, violation, duty prescribe will terminate illegal monopoly, deny fruits statutory ensure remain likely result future. See, e.g., Grinnell 384 563, 577, 86 1698, 1707, 16 778 (1966); Schine Chain Theatres 334 110, 128—129, 68 947, 957, 92 1245 (1948). charged inescapable responsibility objective, may, warrant, accept formula achieving immediate dissolution divestiture. carefully devised principle. Measures short divestiture prescribed review possible revision years.4 13 now ground 'still working long-range task freeing from all consequences keeping door wide open arrival adequately challenger.' According court, intended 14 contained 18—if silent submitting reports and, necessary, modification—and achieved adequate entitled assure complete extirpation monopoly. court's do clear. (1932); Chrysler 316 556, 62 1146, 1668 (1942). Its implicit decisions type remedy prescribed. 15 find nothing relating thereto presents obstacle embarrassment application principle not, years, 'principal objects,' namely, market'—the come other, definitive, A decade enough.5 Even assume states, only calling 10-year whether 'gradually eroding monopolize market,' exhaust power. Relief 'should end combination deprive benefits conduct, break up render impotent Act.' (1966). See Gypsum 340 76, 88—90, 71 160, 169—170, 95 89 (1950); E. Du Pont De Nemours 366 316, 326, 81 1243, 1250, 318 (1961). proceed determine met standards expedition. ordered. Reversed remanded. 17 MARSHALL took part consideration Some major enjoined monopolization; ordered offer sale types machines (previously leased) terms * make substantially advantageous factory lease rather buy machine'; leasing five-year certain specified conditions; refuse prospective customer's request machine 'except good cause'; plan disposing sectors business; applicant, except deliberate infringer, nonexclusive license patents reasonable nondiscriminatory royalty terms; acquire patent applications those acquired reason bona fide employment inventor, nor exclusive license; second-hand machiney manufacturer distributor supplies factories. appellee, seeking relieved similarly denied. judgment regard before us, 23 jurisdiction retained 'for enabling apply orders directions correction, construction, carrying out Decree, set aside Decree take proceedings future developments enforcement Anti-Trust rejecting suggestion forbidden terms, stated 'agrees undesirable, least until milder tried, direct abolish forthwith.' 349. emphasize issue here regarding timing modification. No claim petitioned running period during effects become Moreover, claim, persuasively, when did.

Category: 7