Legal Document

395 U.S. 100 89 Supreme Court Reporter 1562 23 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 129 ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., et al. Number 49. Argued Jan. 22, 1969. Deciding May 19, [Syllabus from pages 100-103 intentionally omitted] Thomas C. McConnell, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. John T. Chadwell and Victor Pacific KF135 P2 Kayser, respondents. [The balance of this page left blank] Mr. Justice WHIT delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner Zenith Radio Corporation (Zenith) is a Delaware which many years has been successfully engaged in business manufacturing radio television sets sale foreign countries. A necessary incident Zenith's operations acquisition licenses to use patented devices radios televisions it manufactures, its transactions have included licensing agreements with respondent Hazeltine Research, Incorporated (HRI), an Illinois corporation owns domestic patents, principally fields. HRI wholly owned subsidiary (Hazeltine), substantially larger more diversified company that among assets numerous patents—including counterparts HRI's patents—which 2 Until 1959, had obtained right all patents under so-called standard package license. In year, however, expiration license imminent, declined accept offer renew, asserting no longer required HRI. Negotiations proceeded stalemate, November brought suit Northern District Illinois, claiming infringed on particular automatic control system. answer alleged invalidity patent asserted noninfringement, further claim was unenforceable because misuse as well unclean hands through conspiracy pools. On 1963, than three after filed, filed counterclaim against treble damages injunctive relief, alleging violations Sherman Act by including one suit, HRI, Hazeltine, pools Canada, England, Australia. contended these refused placed within their exclusive authority, others seeking export Americanmade into those markets. 3 The Court, sitting without jury, ruled infringement action, 239 F.Supp. 51, 68—69, judgment respect, affirmed Appeals, 388 Federal Reporter, 2nd 25, 30—33, not issue here. counterclaim, ruled, first misused attempting coerce acceptance five-year license, insisting extracting royalties unpatented products. F.Supp., at 69—72, 76—77. Judgment entered favor amount actual approximately $50,000, relief awarded. Second, were found conspired exclude Canadian, English, Australian granted respective countries shared pools' profits, knowing each pool importation enforced ban imports threats suits. along coconspirator, therefore held restrain trade or commerce States, violation § Act, 26 Statutes-at-Large 209, amended, 15 Code KF62 1, liable injury caused operation 77 78. Total respect markets, when trebled, amounted nearly $35,000,000.1 awarded Zenith, participation any arrangement prevent exportig electronic equipment market. 4 Relying upon finding stipulated before trial be considered entity purposes litigation, see 69, court judgments both conspiracy, named counter-defendant, 5 appeal Appeals set aside entirely ruling lacked jurisdiction over stipulation relied insufficient basis entering Hazeltine. F.2d, 28—30. With claim, treble-damage award but modified certain respects Court's injunction misuse. 33—35, 39. 6 also reversed trade. Without reaching other issues presented phase case, failed sustain burden Clayton 38 731, 15, prove fact damage—injury business-within relevant four-year period preceding date filed.2 Finally, struck conspiracies restricting 7 We certiorari, 391 933, 88 1844, 20 853, consider things question whether properly discharged appellate function Rule 52(a) Rules Civil Procedure, specifies findings made jury are unless 'clearly erroneous.' I. THE JUDGMENTS AGAINST HAZELTINE 8 plaintiff complaint began litigation parent, Hazeltine; only 'counter-defendant,' identifying 'counter-defendant parent.' After draft attorneys—both unlawfully pools—HRI 'for Plaintiff parent will same company.' 9 two weeks signed, money 'in privity' it. served party, although coconspirator appearance until proposed it, time 'special appearance.' Insofar record reveals, did formally participate proceedings initial conclusions law. April 5, 1965, Hazeltine's special appearance, judge thereby rejecting objection Apparently, based decision pretrial stipulation3 earlier that: 10 'The parties Corporation, would operating holding company, exploitation rights electronics industry countries.' 69. 11 quite vacating It elementary bound personam resulting he designated party service process. Hansberry versus Lee, 311 32, 40—41, 61 115, 117, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940). consistent constitutional rule power adjudict e personal obligation person defendant. E.g., Pennoyer Neff, 95 714, 24 565 (1878); Vanderbilt Vanderbilt, 354 416, 418, 1360, 1362, 1456 (1957). 12 Here, never appear trial. Nor adequate substitute normal methods obtaining corporation. represented agreement acts signed attorney, Dodds. execute stipulation, Dodds, officer purport signing behalf. apparently viewed binding equivalent entry consent face, hardly warrants construction, if there circumstances justified court's conclusion, do reveal them. 13 Perhaps could proved might alter egos; absent determination bind If ego litigated, decided gave perhaps full opportunity contest warrant But what occurred stipulation. may executed avoid litigating issue,4 cannot foreclose day should litigation. 14 Likewise, shown officer, controlled behalf res judicata control, itself finally adjudicated company.5 See G. & Merriam Saalfield, 241 36 477, 60 868 (1916); Schnell Peter Eckrich Sons, Inc., 365 260, 81 557, 546 (1961). Neither nor proper. Although injunctions issued federal courts defendant persons active concert them who receive notice order otherwise,' Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(d), nonparty contempt participation. error enter having proceeding party.6 II. FOREIGN PATENT POOLS Atlantic Treble-Damage Award 16 major points during damage proved; suffered injury, resulted partly conduct prior extent barred statute limitations 1957 settlement antitrust RCA, General Electric, Western effect releasing liability presettlement pools;7 companies illegally pools; excessive. Passing pressed defense, activities either beginning period, contrary clearly erroneous.8 17 concluded erred setting Canada. evidence, means conclusive, sufficient inference injured some extent9 Canadian pool's restraints sets. hand, we agree English 18 briefly summarized. pool, Patents, Limited (CRPL), formed 1926 Electric Company subsidiary, Company, Westinghouse subsidiary. up largely manufacturers, most subsidiaries American companies. sublicense member number concerns. About 5,000 available licensing, granted, covering strictly limited manufacture No importers available. chief purpose protect members licensees competition products 19 CRPL's efforts highly organized effective. Agents, investigators, manufacturer distributor associations systematically policed market; warning notices advertisememts advised distributors, dealers, even consumers selling using unlicensed equipment. Infringement suits thereof regularly effectively employed dissuade dealers handling American-made For attempted establish distribution distributors warned off secure goods unsuccessful. then Electric.10 This favorably settled, receiving, things, worldwide defendants. Armed licenses, 1958 exporting promptly informed CRPL continue sign permit importation, ad sell Canada must there. notified infringing least Soon demand CRPL, Zenith. 21 Some describing 'drastic' impact events state they 1959. confined injuries sustained statutory deemed immaterial damage-causing start period. Damages assumption 16% market throughout rather 3% share.11 Since failure ascribed operations, part awarded, therefore, necessarily pre-damage conduct.12 evidence Having put belatedly raised Appeals,13 import damaged act occurring date. Appeals' overriding judgment—as no-injury rationale meet claims conduct—was done operated country. error. competing concerns patentees joined together granting refusing imported goods. Their clear like willing consequently, able obtain vigorous campaign discourage importers, selling, handling, merchandise prevented making headway RCA codefendants. And 1958, undertook earnest system merchandise, met advertisements threatening action notifications, continuing past manufactured interfered difficult 1959 later years. reasonably conclude cumulative effects consequences lasting rationally reached maximum potential beginning, smaller share existed. 25 support need merely assume continued entitled absence termination. See, e.g., Local 167 International Brother-hood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen Helpers America 291 293, 297—298, 54 396, 398, 78 804 (1934); Oregon State Medical Society, 343 326, 333, 72 690, 695, 96 978 (1952). frankly conceded continuation Court,14 appears sufficiently deprived always it—a permitting 12, manager conferred vice president, informing him require local manufacture. followed June letter stating reservation receivers infringing, enclosing form. nothing less canada take cease country.15 There ever retreated position next four 27 thus operate unburdened conspiratorial terms satisfy laws. deprivation constituted business. find singularly unpersuasive argument one. little assertion participants enjoyed substantial income, value. doing obviously involved weighty risks itself, besides requiring convince legally clearance CRPL.16 28 Of course, determined risks, serious were. instant patent, counterpart persevered efforts. now pressed, held, bothered neither mid-1959 ran gantlet so difference whatsoever. 29 true discloses specific instance subsequent existing dormant contains Motorola containing warnings unlicensed, merchandise.17 More significant, fair testimony officers remained establishing effective independent Provinces, unable Central Maritime where own distribution. These officers, experienced businessmen, testified similarities between attributing much poorer performance discouraging repressive pool. refuse credit testimony, insists do,18 accepting damage, weight deference tc adhere teachings Bigelow RKO Pictures, 327 251, 66 574, 90 652 (1946), cases dealing proof actions. 30 applying erroneous district constantly mind decide factual de novo. authority court, reviewing circumscribed give decisions trier fact, usually superior appraise weigh evidence. did, 'on entire (it) definite firm conviction mistake committed.' Gypsum Co., 333 364, 395, 68 525, 542, 92 746 (1948). National Assn. Real Estate Boards, 339 485, 495—496, 70 711, 717, 94 1007 (1950); Commissioner Internal Revenue Duberstein, 363 278, 289 291, 80 1190, 1198—1199, 1218 (1960). 31 Trial alike observe practical limits mnay demanded seeks recovery partial total exclusion rarely susceptible kind concrete, detailed contexts. repeatedly precise proof, factfinder 'conclude matter just reasonable defendants' wrongful tendency injure plaintiffs' business, decline prices, profits values, attributable causes, plaintiffs.' supra, U.S., 264, S.Ct., 579. Eastman Kodak Southern Photo Materials Co New York, 273 359, 377—379, 47 400, 404—405, 71 684 (1927); Story Parchment Paterson Paper 282 555, 561—566, 51 248, 250—251, 75 544 (1931). 32 Bigelow, claimed film deny first-run pictures. He offered comparing his theater showings measuring current earned films him. reversing damages. base speculation guesswork, 33 'the make estimate data, render verdict accordingly. such circumstances, 'juries allowed probable inferential direct positive proof.' 561—564, 250, 544; Material 404, 405, 684. Any enable wrongdoer profit wrongdoing expense victim. inducement complete every case preclude recovery, rendering measure uncertain. Failure apply mean grievous wrong done, likelihood recovery.' 264—265, 580. 34 denied valuable submitted encountered difficulties securing comparable proficiency, demonstrated dictated established organization long history excluding merchandise; view existence precisely type loss laws likely cause. infer circumstantial causal relation Continental Ore Union Carbide Carbon Corp., 370 0, 696—701, 82 1404, 1409—1411, 777 (1962). 35 2. Pool. 1930. restricted expired found, assume, licensed States.19 interested arrangements desiring handle merchandise. At suitable attained appreciable 37 initially responsible market, proceedings, government embargo, sole reason 1959; then, '(was) called exercise exercised Canada.' not, retreat conclusion imposed foreclosed period.20 erred. Based our examination record, convinced ending embargo mid-1959, faced obstacles discouraged responsible. Positing get British whether, once lifted, wanted intended enter, capacity so, inability Section show 'business property anything forbidden laws.' lack desire, production capabilities, factors unlawful conduct, 4.21 39 muchi clear. 525- 625-line-per-second scanning signals, whereas 405-line signal England Similarly, while FM transmission utilized audio portion, AM signals used England. regular product salable To succeed all, produce differently equipped provide mass conversion receivers. Unquestionably, facilities ability follow course. equally pursued neither.22 change broadcast include 625-line consideration, event sold prices higher prevailing tariffs freight costs tended widen differential. ential. Producing new modifying existent models large-scale basis, costs. 40 us, correspondence representative, think correctly rejected 'Zenith prepared period,' 'waiting standards system.' 37. emerges intention promote occurred. Given event, customers deterred effort penetrate Why far shows quiescent credited grasp. hand deterrent inflicted damage. Rather, constrained stay out calculus led await favorable conditions. As said, latter permissible record. 41 3. 42 Had kept compensable unquestionably silent how An revealed exported Australias ince 1920's early 1930's. requested 20-year High shipping additional barriers, prospect competition. Nothing us correct 43 baron Injunction. 44 grant similar association trade,23 stated, more: 45 'It follows 'threatened damage' directed pools, conspiracies, Sec. 26. Paragraph Contract stricken.' 46 evident premise striking unsound, 26, enacted Congress equitable remedies previously private parties, invokes traditional principles equity authorizes demonstration 'threatened' injury.24 That remedy characteristically though yet Bedford Cut Stone Journeymen Cutters' Assn., 274 37, 54—55, 522, 527, 916 demonstrate significant threat impending contemporary recur. Swift 196 375, 276, 279, 49 518 (1905); 54, 527; (1952); W. Grant 345 629, 633, 73 894, 897, 97 1303 (1953). Moreover, giving serve high enforcing Borden 347 514, 518, 74 703, 706, 98 903 (1954). construed applied mind, knowledge affords, remedies, flexible capable nice 'adjustment reconciliation betwen public interest needs claims.' Hecht Bowles, 321 321, 329—330, 64 587, 592, 754 (1944). Its availability 'conditioned necessities sought protect.' Id., 330, 592. 48 Judged proper standard, warranted conspiring indicating terminated inherent foreseeable future. relative quiescence objectionable negated trade.25 too argument, reinstate insofar broadly restrict exercising jurisdiction, '(a) broad class committed whose commission future enjoined, fairly anticipated defendant's past.' NLRB Express Publishing 312 426, 435, 693, 699, 930 (1941). Lead 332 319, 328—335 n. 4, 67 1634, 1638—1641, 91 2077 (1947). established. propensity sort indicated revealing Australia.26 expanding coconspirators world courts, powers extended 16, respond 'salutary principle law restrained committing related acts.' 436, 699. enjoin illegal defendant, laws, however unrelated N.H. H.R. ICC, 200 361, 401, 272, 280, 50 515 (1906), '(w)hen law, untraveled roads end open worn closed.' Salt 392, 17, particularly cases, ends, 'they pry closed restraints.' 17. III. PATENT-MISUSE ISSUE. challenged length last clause injunction,27 enjoined 52 'A. Conditioning directly indirectly defendant-counterclaimant, subsidiaries, taking paying manufacture, apparatus covered patent.' (Emphasis added.) 53 paragraph policy agreement, 500-odd portfolio reserving licensee's sales, irrespective actually manufactured.28 effect, determinations. First, Automatic Mfg. 827, 1312 (1950), conditioning payment patent. since constitute misuse, violative meaning injunction. determination, reverse Appeals. hold teaching does 55 serving mutual convenience basing sets, inventions. reaches situations patentee 'conditions' products—that is, refuses leaves licensee choice providing all. Also, takes conditioned 'on' patent—where express provisions employ monopoly collect royalties, invention, using, making, article reach 56 use, invention. Bement Sons Harrow 186 70, 88—89, 747, 754, 1058 (1902). heart legal invoke State's utilizing discovery consent. Bag Eastern 210 748, 1122 (1908); Crown Die Tool Nye Machine Works, 261 24, 254, 516 (1923). recognizes assign another whole part, practice Waterman Mackenzie, 138 252, 255, 334, 335, 923 (1891). exceed employing leverage limit licensee. Among restrictions him, condition purchase, sell, scope monopoly. Ethyl Gasoline 309 455—459, 618, 624 626, 84 852 (1940); 395—396, 14—15, His price extend far, whatever privilege 'to exact can negotiate.' Brulotte Thys 379 29, 33, 176, 179, 99 (1964). patent's extract commitment according desires patentee, garner percentage receipts sales products; derive benefit teachings. 57 machine, royalty invention after, before, Recognizing lawfully charge practicing postponed beyond time, noted post-expiration royaltis term articulated particularized context levy Government. 58 contrary; proposition carte blanche articles. acquired present promising pay receivers, minimum $10,000 per year. sued sums. extracted way approved convenient method designed determining receiver embodied acceptable alternative lump-sum patents. affirmed. 59 Finding tie-in (1947), inapposite, distinguishing (1948), involving eliminate competition, 'payment agreed sales,' '(s)ound indicate represents fixing value privileges agreement.' 834, 898. 'inherent' provision stated 'it se consideration sales.' Ibid. foregoing inconsistent producing deal negotiations spawned formula promise learning mere if, work out, none employs idea process, undetermined portion contain easily be, Radio, efficient several standpoints face figuring use.29 dictates total-sales provision, conditions attached said bargains hisp roducts agrees lump sum percentage-of-total-sales royalty, escape demonstrating disclosed disagree negotiates developments (he) desire(s) them,' 898, complain chooses except royalty. 62 read authorize insist override protestations unsuited lines desire purchase collected nonuse source 63 inheres patentee's insistence percentage-of-sales regardless rejection proposals use. uses Equally, ideas keep empowers discoveries expect insurance suits, footing expenses alone perhaps, turn absolutely finds real them, anticipate license—enough insure negotiating administering monopoly, discern define. 65 otherwise Whether embodies ingredients threatened entitle Act. Morton S. Suppiger 314 488, 490, 402, 86 (1942); Transparent-Wrap Stokes Smith 329 637, 641, 610, 613, 563 (1947); Laitram King Crab, 245 1019 (D.C.Alaska 1965). Report Attorney General's Committee Study Antitrust Laws 254 (1955); R. Nordhaus E. Jurow, Patent-Antitrust Law 122—123 (1961); Frost, Patent Misuse Per Se Violation, Conference 113—123 (J. Rahl Zaidins ed., 1955). Cf. Staff Subcommt tee House Judiciary, 84th Cong., Sess., Problems Exploitation Patents (Comm.Print.1956); Schueller, Illegality Se: Forestalling Misuse, Col.L.Rev. 170, 184—200 (1950). justify leave dealt instance. Accordingly, remanded opinion. ordered. remanded. 69 HARLAN, concurring dissenting part. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions concur Parts II However, join Part III, holds measures lawful 'convenience' 'insisted upon' patentee. My difficulty test validity exceedingly consequently apt engender uncertainty area dealing, certainty desirable. practice, often very hard tell licensor. unenviable task deciding course establishes 'insistence' suspect provision. Because determinations, assurance enforced. predicted today's licensor careful embellish proposal, unravelling situation difficult. Such considerations lead me causes depend judicial parties' disserve interests concerned. Hence, fallen short failing address employment invariably misuse.1 second reality overrules aspect offering shadow economics departing ruling. Despite distinguish tenor here, ground '(t)his create monopoly; creates restraint legitimate 833, 897. significance qualifying language believe today misconstrued reading satisfies Research 'insisted' inclusion disputed emphasizing 'per se' i suse simply endeavoring 'create competition'. 832, 8972 impaired Radio.3 exposition economic reasons away doctrine. nearest thing declaration 76 'just teachings.' Ante, 136. heretofore nonexistent 'insist * *.' 139. What undertake explain enables 'benefit teachings,' himself remembered solely paid, apparent why alternatives, 79 One possible explanation result, seems especially exception overreaching. cite, presented, protection.4 Another justification result tend spur 'invent around' acquire less, hint theory rest economy, allocation resources, harm admit parties. assistance answering crux case: recent analysis5 argues undesirable consequences. already noted, reduce incentive other, cheaper 'inputs' item end-product. will, cause end-product output lower substitution occurred.6 suggested elements profit, above norm differ 'perfect competition,' occur use.7 accepted, analysis outlawed. find, discussion matters lawyers economists. scant illumination score briefs arguments case. pointed administratively advantageous confronted, are, valid invalid across board, would, individual Radio. findings, handed down January 76, $16,238,872 period: Canada: Television............... $5,826,896 Radio....................... 470,495 England: Television................ 8,079,859 Radio..................... 1,169,067 Australia: Television.................. 625,786 Radio........................ 66,769 Total...................... 16,238,872 judgment, awarding hearings October amended Television..................... $4,312,924 Radio............................. 745,102 Television........................ 223,508 Radio.............................. 24,952 Total........................... 5,306,486 revisions reflect showing embargoes Australia, 1960 respectively, precluded embargoes, zero year 50% figure accepted 75% third, 100% fourth. adopted 0 50—75—100% revision original figures computing 1965. below counterclaim. back pleading, Bull 295 247, 262 10, 700-701, 1421 (1935); Cold Metal Process Bliss 285 231 (C.A.6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 366 911, 1085, 235 15(c) (amended pleading relates 'claim defense arose transaction, occurrence forth pleading'). During 2, noted: 'Well, wasn't lawsuit.' reliance reflected interchanges counsel proceedings. example following: 'Mr. Kayser (counsel Hazeltine): Could anyone really minute thought bringing lawsuit relying simplify expedite trial? Would lawyer somebody didn't name them? Court: You stipulations worthless?' indication genesis conference, subpoena records relating latter's stipulation's facilitate obviating necessity 'pierce corporate veil' parent. brief argue estopped Not counsel, Ruestow Westermann, general 'repudiate' construction allegedly given adjudication untenable references interpretation advanced eliminated perform time-consuming piercing veil proving Westermann witnesses trial, assuming trial—a wi ch disproved record—their repudiate witnesses, authorized representatives Just litigated heard, 111, evidently rely contention, implicit brief, appeared participation' that, consented finding. generally Dobbs, Validation Void Judgments: Bootstrap Principle (pts. 2), Va.L.Rev. 1003, 1241 (1967). urged joint tortfeasors, released flowing release trade; Australia lifted executed. disturb, we, Accepting doubt violated. Timken Roller Bearing 341 593, 599, 971, 975, 1199 (1951); 704, 1413, Once exports activities, trebledamage participating qus tion. supra. Banana Fruit 213 347, 511, 826 (1909); Aluminum America, 148 443 (C.A.2d 1945). here involved, follow. example, Line 287, 305—315, 550, 559—564, 701 (1948); Singer 374 174, 196—197, 83 1773, 1784—1785, 823 (1963). satisfied conspiracy; inquiry point goes enough illegality material injury; exhaust sources fulfilling 4. 702, 1412 (1962); Perma Life Mufflers, 392 134, 143 144, 1981, 1986—1987, 982 (1968) (concurring opinion). 1. Rauland Corporation. computation damages, experts reflects comparison ranging 15.6% 21.7% 3.1% 5.2% 1961 3.2% 1963. discuss determine lost sales. executive vice-president treasurer, Kaplan, testified: 'In commenced starting blown organization, benefits date.' plead defense. oral motion 'leave file' defenses pursuant agreement. thrust former primarily erroneously mention defenses, forthwith amend considering waived 12(h), filing expressly 'during 4-year period.' 76. purporting pass referred 'four period' identified '(f)our 15b.' argued confusion surrounding predamage recoverable unwaived erted. stated: 'Now, Zenith) trying and, defines yes, did. about characterized necessarl y characterizes know, today. that.' contend, ties broken December secured termination CRPL. infra. formal request attributed recognition futile. clear, fatal 699—702, 1410—1412, Hanover Shoe, Shoe Machinery 481, 487, 2224, 2228, 1231 (1968). 1960, Royal Commission Copyright Industrial Designs published. described magnitude risk taken licences consisted licence doubtful receiver. 'CRPL importer *. precluding Commission. enforce sells infringes letter, attention ex-Zenith dealer, dealer probably cautioned litigate infringements, successful reminded imports: closing, wish inform you happy coming ambit patents.' urges Wright recall, documentary disregard testimony. judge's views credibitility completely impervious, admonishes due regard assess credibility witnesses. took account probative 247 37—38, 473, 475, 968 (1918); Walling Industries 330 545, 883, 885, 1088 Graver Tank Linde Air Products 605, 609—612, 854, 856—858, 1097 332, Orvis Higgins, 180 537, 539—540 Cir.), 340 810, 595 Ruth Utah Construction Mining 344 952 (C.A.10th relies heavily annual reports 1957—1962, reports, 1962, admitted undermine Kaplan. mid-1955 representative confirmed understanding Pool (radio television) abroad.' 'saw possibility' restrictive changed Subsequently, dealings Engligh distributor, 'given understand question.' removal build share. 166 KF105 F3 261, 264 1908), reference issue, Stearns Tinker Rasor, 252 589, 606 (C.A.9th 1958); Volasco Lloyd Fry Roofing 308 383, 395—396 1962), 372 907, 721, 717 Pennsylvania Sugar Rfg. 260 1908). Kaplan adjustments shop adapt 1965 system, shipment distributor's shop, carried occasionally questionable utility commercial basis. appreciably model steps direction anticipation changeover prohibits 'Entering into, adhering to, contract, understanding, plan program, person, association, restricts prevents market.' provides: 'Any firm, corporation, shall sue equity, rules governing informs 'with imports.' abandonment after—and, apparently, response to—the decree, suggestion rendered unnecessary inappropriate. Concentrated Phosphate Export 393 199, 202—203, 363—364, free attempt eliminated, elsewhere justifies modification injunction, see, 633—636, 897—899, (1953), reappraisal light post-trial developments. disturbed imports, intent expand foundation posed barring mechanism rate few B 'Conditioning greater group includes respects, 39, disturb modifications. concluded: 'Plaintiff's demands paid admittedly monopolies arguing policy. While arms-length transaction select convenience, force products.' 77. disclose forced leverage. violate explictly distinguished kind, Mercoid Mid-Continent Investment 320 661, 268, 376 832—833, 896—897. (1964), different question: expiration. Photocopy Equip. Rovico, Cir., 359 745 (1966). Baxter, Legal Restrictions Monopoly: Economic Analysis, Yale L.J. 267 id., 299—301, 302—306. 300—301, 302—306, 331—332.

Classification Label: 7