Court Opinion

ID: 9450439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:48:03.913333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:19.472201
License: Public Domain

O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
I regret my inability to agree with the learned, exhaustive and painstaking opinion of my brothers. The critical holding of such opinion is that, as a matter of fact, the variety of news furnished over AP’s Ohio wire constitutes a commodity distinct and separate from the news furnished over its other wire services and that AP must, for a separate price and without purchase of other services, supply the Ohio wire to any member of AP who requests it. This the Associated Press must do under the majority’s holding lest it stand convicted of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S. C.A. § 1, which provides that “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several *770States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal * *
Defendant-appellant, Taft-Ingalls Corporation,1 as a publisher of the Cincinnati Times-Star had been a member of the Associated Press since the latter was formed in 1900. Under its contract in force with the AP at the times here involved, it had agreed as a member of AP to receive, use and pay for at a single price, the news brought to it by the three wires then employed by AP to distribute to its metropolitan city members news “of all kinds” gathered by AP’s people domestically and worldwide. It seems fair to assume from the evidence that a metropolitan daily could not operate without receiving from some source all of the news that AP furnished over these three wires. The Cincinnati Times-Star also subscribed to some of the services of United Press International, the other major news gatherer, as did the publisher of the Cincinnati Post and Times-Star after the consolidation. The editor of the Cincinnati Post and Times-Star testified that even if he could have obtained the AP’s general news A wire alone, he would not quit receiving the news provided by United Press and that a metropolitan daily could not operate with AP’s A wire alone.
Preliminarily, I observe that the activities of the Associated Press, notwithstanding that it is a mutual membership organization, are subject to and can be found to violate the Sherman Act. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945). Yet I would like to pose at the outset the query whether the present case is properly susceptible to decision in terms of the classic “tying” analysis. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the inherent vice of tying arrangements is that they allow a seller to extend into one sphere a power developed in another sphere, thereby suppressing competition on the merits and taking unfair advantage of an otherwise legitimate market power. E.g., Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 6, 78 S.Ct. 514, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958). In my own mind, the inquiry into product separability is in the present case an awkward approach to the question whether AP has been guilty of wide-scale tying arrangements. A broad view of the record reveals that AP was created by newspapers, as a mutual association for the purpose of gathering and disseminating to members as much news as rapidly and as accurately as possible. As it has developed, the costs of the enterprise are not assessed against members on the basis of the actual cost of delivering news to them; rather, each is assessed by a formula which seeks to determine the amount of benefit each member derives from the service rendered. AP’s position may be seen as fundamentally the position that it should be allowed to admit only members who are willing to participate in, and bear their fair share of the cost of, this undertaking to provide comprehensive news coverage. I would prefer to deal with this position squarely, applying the rule of reason to the situation as it stands, instead of forcing analysis into the artificial “tying” mould in which the arrangement is per se illegal “whenever a party has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product and a ‘not insubstantial’ amount of interstate commerce is affected.” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra, 356 U.S. 6, 78 S.Ct. 518.
Approaching AP’s overall setup from general rule of reason analysis, I am persuaded that it is reasonable. There is no evidence whatever that members have been inveigled into undesired commitments by an extension of one form of power into an area where there is no power. Instead, the present record shows only a situation where a rational and fair *771system of apportioning the costs of a mutual undertaking would be jeopardized, if not entirely defeated, by requiring the admission of members who do not wish to share in the entire enterprise. Assume for a moment that the Times-Star were admitted solely for the purpose of receiving news of Ohio events under compulsion of the majority’s reasoning. Can any fair system be devised to allocate a fair share of AP’s total costs to the Times-Star and other possible choosy members? Should AP be coerced into a difficult and arbitrary undertaking by interpreting the Sherman Act to find two or more products are here involved in a tying arrangement? Times-Star’s own expert accountant, one Batzer,2 readily admitted that he was unable to find any way to intelligently allocate to the Ohio Big Cities wire, if taken alone, a proper portion of the total cost of the AP basic news service. This, in my view, supports the trial court’s finding of inseparability. To illustrate, may I hypothesize a single newsworthy event. AP’s man in Cairo, Egypt gets information that a prominent Cincinnatian is killed in Cairo, together with other Cairo news of worldwide interest; he sends this bundle of news to the AP bureau in New York, and from there it goes to the AP bureau at Columbus on the B wire; the chief there picks off the item of the death of the Cincinnatian and sends it to Cincinnati on the Ohio wire. I pose the question, when does this news become a separate and distinct commodity? At Cairo, Egypt? Or was it converted to singularity at Columbus, Ohio ? If so, should a charge for the service be limited to some portion of the salary of the AP man at Columbus and the cost of the electronic channel between Columbus and Cincinnati? But who then is to pay for the services of the people who gathered and sent out the news from Cairo, and who is to pay for its handling in New York and how will these costs be apportioned? How will Cincinnati be separately assessed for a part of Cairo’s costs for the rare day on which an event in Egypt has some special interest in Cincinnati ?
Reference has been made to the claimed fact that United Press furnishes one or more wires for separate prices. The evidence on this is quite unclear. The United Press, unlike AP, is a corporation for profit, not a mutual association. The only evidence exhibiting a definite arrangement between a newspaper and United Press was its 1955 contract with Times-Star. This was quite similar to the AP contract and called for delivery of UP’s “regular Day Trunk, Ohio State and Sports Report” for an unsegregated charge of “$600 per week during the first four years; $1,000 per week during the fifth year, and $1,300 per week thereafter.”
My conclusion that AP’s basic arrangement is reasonable in its basic nature can be further supported by attempting to fit the present case into the terms of conventional tying analysis, a task to which I now turn.
1) Separability.
The tying arrangements first considered to violate the Sherman Act were those where a patentee sought to extend his patent monopoly by refusing to sell the product of his patent without an unpatented item. International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947). As the law has developed, however, the tying product need not have patent monopoly to condemn its use to control other tied products. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 9, 78 S.Ct. 514 (1958). But to establish such illegality, it is essential that the tied and the tying products be separable and different. “For our purposes a tying arrangement may be defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or *772tied) product. * * * ” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra, 356 U.S. 5, 78 S.Ct. at 518. (Emphasis supplied.) The defendant-appellant, relying on a charge of illegality to avoid liability for breach of its contract, had the burden of proving such illegality. Palmer v. Chamberlin, 191 F.2d 532 (CA 5, 1951); Illinois Surety Co. v. O’Brien, 223 F. 933 (CA 6, 1915). Whether the news items of all kinds that were of especial interest to Ohio readers were different products than the general news items of all kinds which were also of interest to the readers df the Cincinnati Times-Star was a question of fact. The District Judge found that defendant-appellant had failed to meet its burden of proving as a matter of fact the separability necessary to taint the contract with illegality. Recognizing that such ruling was a finding of fact, my brothers, in reversing the District Judge, conclude as required by Rule 52(a) F.R.C.Proc. that such finding was clearly erroneous. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the District Judge’s holding that appellant had failed to prove such essential fact was not only not clearly erroneous, but was in my view clearly correct.
In support of my view, I recite what I believe is a fair summary of the evidence from which the essential facts had to be found. It was from the awareness of its charter members that acquisition and publication of news could better be accomplished through mutual efforts that the Associated Press had its beginnings in 1900. The record does not clearly disclose just what methods and instruments were initially employed to reciprocally exchange news for publication. The morse code was early used and we may assume that telegraph was the customary means. With the developments that followed telegraph, telephone and wireless came into use. The information making up the news is actually conveyed by instrumentalities provided by the American Telephone & Telegraph and the Western Union. The word “wire” came to be used to identify what was referred to in the testimony as an electronic channel, not necessarily a physical wire. It is clear that the use of the several so-called “wires” did not at all come about as an effort by a manufacturer of several products to increase control of a market by lying one product to another. To the contrary, the use of several channels came about as the volume of the news increased and it was found inefficient to carry all the news on one channel. With several channels available, each was devoted primarily to one general type of news — top national and international news on A, financial or business news on D, and local interest news on S (Ohio Big Cities in the present case, although we may assume that a similar S wire was provided for other regions as well). Notwithstanding this general classification, the evidence showed that news items outside of the respective classification were, consistent with varying load problems, carried on each of the wires. The reason for this is illustrated by the starting of the D wire about 1934. Up to then the financial and business news was sent over the A wire and a parallel wire called B, but it was found that these facilities were not adequate to expeditiously deliver the financial and business news with the other general news and at the request and with the consent of the AP members, a D wire was established to pick up the financial news separately between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. and get it out promptly to the members. During and prior to the times here involved, however, there was no D wire distributing financial and business news to members west of Kansas City. Such news was, and apparently continues to be, carried on the A wire and a so-called B wire, neither of which carry the financial news separately. It was shown also that the use of three wires was limited to the metropolitan dailies and that a condensation of all of the news on the A, B, D and S wires went on a single circuit to smaller city papers that did not need the same volume as the metropolitan papers. The function of the B wire is not entirely clear from the evidence, although it seems to have been a wire parallel to the A wire and *773also to have been used for direct exchange of news between the AP members. There was evidence that out of the general news coming into an AP bureau at Columbus on the B wire, the chief of that bureau, on his evaluation, would take out dispatches of special news interest to the Ohio papers and run them on the S or Ohio Big Cities wire. There was much evidence of overlapping on all wires and each at times, according to the general load carried news unrelated to its general classification or news that partook of several classifications.3 The following footnote recitation in the District Judge’s opinion partially covers the evidence.
“The term ‘trunk’ as used in this opinion, designates mechanical reproduction of news print. The actual transmission may be carried by wire or by wireless. The news gathered by the Associated Press is transmitted to all members by means of leased wire circuits and electronic facilities. The technical method by which the news is transmitted has no bearing on the legal conclusion herein.
“News originating in the United States is not transmitted to a single control point for transmission, but is transmitted to the members of The Associated Press directly from the news bureau of The Associated Press in the area in which the news originates. News originating abroad is transmitted to the offices of The Associated Press in New York from which it is transmitted to all points in the United States. Newspapers in metropolitan cities require a greater volume of news than newspapers in small cities. The leased wire news service furnished by The Associated Press to newspapers in small cities is transmitted over a single circuit. The leased wire news service furnished by The Associated Press to newspapers in metropolitan cities is transmitted over multiple circuits. These multiple circuits, commonly called trunks, have come into existence because, under present technology, it is impossible to transmit all state, national, and international news on one circuit. As previously mentioned, the leased wire news service furnished by The Associated Press to newspapers in metropolitan cities east of the Mississippi River and north of the Mason-Dixon line is transmitted to such newspapers over circuits designated as A, D, and S trunks. The A circuit operates 24 hours a day and carries news of top national and international importance. The D circuit operates from 10 a. m. to 6 p. m., New York time, Monday through Saturday, and carries financial and business news, market quotations and general news which cannot be accommodated on the A circuit. The S circuit is a regional circuit. In Ohio, the S circuit is known as the Ohio Big Cities wire and carries news of regional interest in Ohio and general news originating elsewhere that cannot be accommodated on the A circuit. The B circuit parallels the A circuit from New York to Kansas City and supplements the A circuit. General news of interest in Ohio is taken from the B circuit at Columbus and relayed to newspapers in Ohio on the S circuit, or Ohio Big Cities wire. At Cincinnati, the B circuit is used exclusively for the transmission of news out of Cincinnati.
“In the years 1984 and 1985, the volume of news transmitted to afternoon newspapers in metropolitan cities became so great, the A and B circuits were inadequate. The As*774sociated Press sought the views of the members affected as to whether a new facility should be established. With the assent of all members affected, the D wire facility was established. Commencing in 1935, the news which was theretofore transmitted to the Cincinnati Times-Star over the B circuit was transmitted over the D circuit.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The evidence offered small help in measuring and separating into identifiable compartments AP’s vast total functions of world-wide news gathering and distribution. It impresses me that the intricacies and complexities involved may make it impossible to offer any evidence for reliably dividing into separate and distinct products or articles the incorporeal thing called news. There was no evidence which would permit easy separation into neat divisions of the gathering of information of the infinite variety of events that go to make up the news. I agree with my brothers that the fact that the Associated Press did not, and in my view likely could not, allocate to each one of its wire facilities a defined share of its total costs does not by itself fore^ close a finding of illegal conduct. However, the obvious difficulty and perhaps impossibility of making any such cost division that would be reliable is, I believe, relevant to and supportive of the District Judge’s finding of fact that appellant failed to prove its case of separability and distinctness. To be sure, the District Judge emphasized that appellant had “failed to provide this court with sufficient facts upon which it may be concluded that there is a natural division in the cost of gathering news transmitted over the A, D. and State trunks,” and further said “without such a complete division, it is unnecessary and futile to explore the other elements of the alleged tying agreement.” He also said, however, “Recognition must be made that the compulsory joining of two separate and distinct things is a fundamental prerequisite of an illegal tie sale situation. * * * Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence of separability.” I read his whole opinion as a finding that appellant’s proofs did not establish as a matter of fact that AP’s several wire services — electronic channels — were separate and distinct products.
It seems to me that it would require excessive subtlety and subjective evaluation to break down into various components the tangled skein of human events called news so as to be able to say, as a fact, that information as to certain events separated by time or physical distance or by the degree of interest it excites in one place and not in another, or by the different persons whose conduct make up the newsworthy events, can be divided so as to be identified as distinct and separate products. Is the knowledge of each of the myriad events that make up the news a separate product, or are separate products to be identified by the means chosen for transmission? Much speculation can be indulged in coming to a factual answer to the involved question of separability. I cannot convince myself that news of the death of the governor of Ohio is a different product than news of the death of the governor of Illinois, any more than news of the resignation of the Mayor of Cincinnati is a different product than news of the resignation of the Mayor of Cleveland or of Dayton, Ohio. I do not think that like products can be made unlike by the vehicles chosen for their delivery to the user. The fact that the AP made some broad classifications of its total news so as to deliver it more speedily and efficiently does not in my view immediately convert these classifications into separate and distinct products. Small newspapers received the news of all kinds over one wire. Could one of these newspapers, having a contract to receive such news for a given price and for a fixed period, demand that AP fix a separate price for the society news and being denied, refuse performance of its contract? It seems to me that material to the factual question involved is that all of the members of the AP have at all times agreed to share by way of assessments the cost of getting the *775“leased wire news service of The Associated Press.” That was the subject matter of appellant’s contract with AP and such contract made no breakdown of such service into different kinds of news. There is no showing in the record that prior to appellant’s request in 1957, any publisher of any metropolitan newspaper or anyone else ever requested delivery of anything less than what was the “wire news service of the Associated Press” even though, as the system developed, separate electronic channels were employed to deliver two classifications out of the whole for more speedy and efficient delivery. Each metropolitan paper used all of this news and it was testified that all of it was essential to the publishing of such a paper. These circumstances bespeak a recognition of the lack of separability of the news provided by AP and should be weighed upon the factual issue of separability.
I am not convinced that the fact that AP offered to the E. W. Scripps Company to eliminate the so-called Kentucky wire and reduce the total assessment by some $240.00 proves the separability of the A, D and S wires. The record is clear that the latter were always considered as together making up the AP’s basic service. It appears that the so-called Kentucky wire was furnished under a separate con(tract made on the same day as the contract in suit, August 4, 1948, and it was between AP and the Cincinnati Times-Star Company of Covington, Kentucky. The contract in suit was between AP and the Cincinnati Times-Star Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. The record is unclear as to the reason for this and in any event does not permit us to give significance to the offer made to the Scripps people to furnish the basic service for Cincinnati without any assessment for a Kentucky wire. The proposal to drop this service for the combined paper proves no more in the present context than the undoubted fact that metropolitan newspapers which do not receive the Kentucky wire may be found all over the country. No comparison was offered to show that the operations of the combined paper were such that the Kentucky service should be included in its assessment for whatever reasons made it fair to assess Times-Star but not a New York newspaper for its costs. Thus this incident illustrates only one application of AP’s assessment formula, geared to estimated needs and benefits, and leaves the record entirely devoid of any attempt to prove the slightest connection between the proposed reduction and the cost of providing the Kentucky wire.
In Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 614, 73 S.Ct. 872, 883, 97 L.Ed. 1277, 1293 (1953), the Supreme Court said:
“The common core of the adjudicated unlawful tying arrangements is the forced purchase of a second distinct commodity with the desired purchase of a dominant ‘tying’ product, resulting in economic harm to competition in the ‘tied’ market.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Northern Pac. Ry. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 518, the Court said:
“For our purposes a tying arrangement may be defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the cases which have developed the rule declaring tying arrangements illegal under the Sherman and Clayton Act, the tying products usually have had physical and corporeal existence distinct and different from the so-called tied products. E.g., International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947); Northern Pac. Ry. v. United States, supra. In the block booking cases, the tying products were separate and distinct products, moving pictures, each complete in itself, each “in itself a unique product,” having physical being and usable alone without aid or supplementation by any other moving picture films, the tied products. United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 47-48, 83 S.Ct. 97, 9 L.Ed.2d 11 (1962).
*776I think it appropriate to emphasize here that this Court is not at liberty to make findings of fact or to draw final inferences of fact simply upon its own evaluation of the evidence. Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1959). Conceding that the issue of separability is one of fact, and being aware of this restriction, my brothers find clearly erroneous the District Judge’s factfinding. Rule 52(a).
In none of the cases relied upon by the majority has an appellate court set aside as clearly erroneous a District Court’s finding of fact. United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 83 S.Ct. 97 (1962); Northern Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 514 (1958); United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff’d per curiam, 365 U.S. 567, 81 S.Ct. 755, 5 L.Ed. 2d 806 (1961). In each of these cases it was the District Judge who made the finding of fact — the appellate court sustained such finding. And American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 221 F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y.1963), also relied upon by the majority, involves no evidentiary findings of fact whatever, for the court was concerned only with a motion to dismiss the complaint. I am unaware of any case where an appellate court has found clearly erroneous a finding of fact involving such nuances of meaning and such delicate appraisal and balancing as were involved in determining whether each news “wire” represented a1 “separate and distinct product.”
2) Illegality as defense to breach of contract.
It should be kept in mind that the contract sued upon did not by its terms or by its negotiation involve any compulsion. Except for possible inferences to be drawn from the recitals in the Minutes of a single AP Board meeting,4 there is no showing that prior to the Times-Star effort in 1957 either Times-Star or any other AP member actually requested that AP provide anything less than its “leased wire service” which Times-Star contracted to take in its contract of 1948. On the contrary, explanation of the impracticability of separation satisfied any inquiry on the subject.5 Apparently, no member of AP considered that what it was getting through its contract and membership was made up of distinct products which might be separately desired or used. The whole enterprise was a mutual plan. No reading of the standard AP contract and its by-laws will exhibit an exposed or hidden plan that any separable part of its service was to be provided on the condition that some other part be accepted and paid for. There is no hint of “a forced purchase of a second distinct commodity,” Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, supra, or the sale of one product “Only on the condition that the buj^er also purchases a different * * * product,” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra. The con*777tract sued upon and its negotiation were entirely free of any element of compulsion,6 and there is nothing in the entire record of this case to suggest that the multiplication of AP’s channels for distributing the news reflects “the use of economic power in one market to restrict competition on the merits in another * * * ” condemned by the Court in Northern Pacific as “the vice of tying arrangements.” 356 U.S. 11, 78 S.Ct. 514 (Emphasis supplied.) Even in September of 1957, Times-Star’s first request was not to get the Ohio Big Cities wire for a separate price, but merely to get a reduction in its assessment for receiving the total AP service.7 This, of course, could only be accomplished by discriminating against all members of AP by having them assume part of Times-Star’s assessment. Only when this was refused did Times-Star seek to have AP deliver the news coming over the Ohio wire alone. I find it difficult to understand how a contract without taint when made can be converted to complete illegality during its term by a request for total or partial release from its valid obligations. I respectfully assert that while the facts involved were not identical with those in the case at bar the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475 (1959), supports my view in this regard. With its preliminary observation that “As a defense to an action based on contract, the plea of illegality based on violation of the Sherman Act has not met with much favor in this Court,” 358 U.S. 518, 79 S.Ct. 431, the Court held that a purchaser who had been receiving the fruits of a contract could not thereafter refuse to fulfill it. In that case Kelly had agreed to purchase 50 cars of onions under a contract which he claimed to have an illegal purpose to fix and control the price of onions. Kelly accepted delivery of 13 cars but refused to take the balance. The seller sued for damages accruing from Kelly’s nonperformance of his unfulfilled promises. It is significant that Kelly had not received or used the onions which were the subject of the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit decision which had sustained the action of the District Court in striking the pleaded defense of illegality. Kosuga v. Kelly, 257 F.2d 48 (CA 7, 1958). The Supreme Court said:
“If the defense of illegality is to be allowed as a collateral method of enforcement of the antitrust laws, as the breadth of the petitioner’s argument suggests, it must be said that his theory creates a very strange class of private attorneys general.” 358 U.S. 520, 79 S.Ct. 431.
I would like further to cite here what the Supreme Court in Kelly v. Kosuga quoted with approval from McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U.S. 639, 669, 19 S.Ct. 839, 851, 43 L.Ed. 1117, 1129 (1899).
“It has been often stated in similar cases that the defense is a very dishonest one, and it lies ill in the mouth of the defendant to allege it, and it is only allowed for public considerations, and in order the better to secure the public against dishonest transactions.”
The action against Kelly was not for the price of onions which he had received and used, but was for damages for failure to take the undelivered portion of the total agreed to be purchased. In the case at bar Times-Star had, under its contract of August 4, 1948, received all of the services covered by the contract up to July of 1958. It had agreed to continue to receive and pay for these services until it terminated its contract by a two-*778year notice. The action here is to recover the loss resulting to AP from Times-Star’s refusal to receive and pay for their news service during the two years following notice of termination. To enforce such a contract against a willing buyer who freely entered into it without questioning whether a lesser contract could be made seems here, even more than in Kelly v. Kosuga, to be but to enforce “a lawful sale for a fair consideration [which] constitutes an intelligible economic transaction in itself. * * * ’ 358 U.S. 521, 79 S.Ct. 432.
With respect, I state my belief that the majority have misconstrued a basic issue when they characterize the AP practice as “this AP policy and practice of ‘tying’ four wire services together in a single ‘package’ and requiring that appellant take and pay for four wire services in order to receive one of them. * * ” There is no evidence that Times-Star even suggested, let alone requested, that it be permitted to take anything different from, or less than, AP’s entire basic news service during all the years it continued as a member of AP, much less in 1948 when it entered into the contract sued upon. Even when beset by financial difficulties, the record makes it clear that Times-Star’s first thought was to get a reduced assessment for the entire AP basic service, and that reduction of service was sought only after it was made clear no lower assessment could be had. In several places my brothers characterize AP’s activities as requiring Times-Star “to continue to subscribe and pay for three wires which appellant did not want and need.” (Emphasis supplied.) On the contrary, AP merely insisted that Times-Star perform its contract made at a time in 1948 when Times-Star obviously did want and need the AP basic news service. AP did not, in 1957, require Times-Star to “continue to subscribe” for the wires it then decided it would prefer not to take. Times-Star had already subscribed for this service and had . received all of the consideration due under its. contract. AP merely refused to consent to its breach — no reason appears in the record why Times-Star could not then have given the required two years’ notice.
The majority places reliance on United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 83 S.Ct. 97 (1962). May I point out that Loew’s as well as Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 514, and United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa.1960), aff’d per curiam 365 U.S. 567, 81 S.Ct. 755 (1961), also relied on, were cases involving government action to enjoin practices or contracts requiring that a “distinct commodity” be taken as a condition to obtaining the more desired “tying” product. Indeed, in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 159, 68 S.Ct. 915, 930, 92 L. Ed. 1260, 1293 (1948), the Supreme Court said,
“We do not suggest that films may not be sold in blocks or groups, when there is no requirement, express or implied, for the purchase of more than one film. All we hold to be illegal is a refusal to license one or more copyrights unless another copyright is accepted.”
None of these cases involved breach of contract actions and I think that Mr. Justice Brennan’s opinion in Kelly v. Kosuga, supra, makes clear the distinction that should be made here. My brothers, asserting that even though voluntarily made, the AP-Times-Star 1948 contract will not save the plaintiff’s judgment here, quote from Loew’s that “the thrust of the antitrust laws cannot be avoided merely by claiming that the otherwise illegal conduct is compelled by contractual obligations. * * * Contractual obligations cannot thus supersede statutory imperatives.” 371 U.S. 51, 83 S.Ct. at 105. (Emphasis supplied.) The quoted language is misapplied. The “contractual obligations” there being discussed did not at all relate to a contract between a supplier and a purchaser, as AP and Times-Star, but involved instead a supplier’s claim that its “contractual obligations” to a third party required it *779to enter into the tying arrangement under attack by the government.
It impresses me that if there is now a question whether the Associated Press has by its practices become a danger to the free competition sought to be protected by the anti-trust laws, the question would better be resolved by Congressional action or by'a frontal attack by the Department of Justice. I find no illegality in the contract before us and thus cannot join in permitting appellant to employ the anti-trust laws to escape obligations voluntarily assumed in a contract which, when made, expressed the bargain it then desired for itself.
I pose the question whether under the majority opinion any member of the Associated Press can legally repudiate its obligations by making and being refused a demand that henceforth it be supplied only, and separately, with the society news, or foreign news, or political news, or news of the British Commonwealth or the European Common Market. If AP’s present practices were indeed illegal tying schemes, and in my view they are not, such a rearrangement of the entire Associated Press method of gathering and distributing the news and assessing its costs will be necessary. But I find it difficult to understand why there should be added the chaos of a transition period where none of the present contractual arrangements can be relied upon. If the manufacturer of Chevrolet automobiles had a contract to sell ten of its Chevrolets per month for a stated period to a purchaser, could the purchaser convert the contract into an illegal tying arrangement by demanding that for the balance of the contract term it be allowed to purchase only the steering mechanism for a separate price so as to use the latter in assembled automobiles designed by the purchaser? I doubt it, even though the steering mechanism is manufactured in a separate facility and easily deliverable by itself.
The majority opinion affirms the District Judge’s dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim for damages under the antitrust laws because the proofs of damages were too speculative for an award thereof. My above views quite obviously put me in agreement with the majority on the disposition of this issue.
3) Other contract defenses.
Because of its holding that illegality bars plaintiff’s recovery, the majority opinion did not deal with other defenses asserted by appellant. These included claims that under its contract and the by-laws of the Associated Press appellant’s liability ceased when it was no longer publisher of the Cincinnati Times-Star and that plaintiff AP had suffered no recoverable damages by appellant’s conduct.
a) Discontinuance of publication. After the Cincinnati Times-Star assets were transferred to E. W. Scripps Company, : owners of the Cincinnati Post, both news-1 papers were continued as a combined daily called the Cincinnati Post and Times-Star. The AP contract in ques-I tion provided that it would continue in force “until terminated by the Member upon two years’ notice, in writing, by registered mail to the Associated Press of the Member’s election to do so.” The contract also provided that “The provisions hereof and the By-laws of The Associated Press constitute the whole agreement between the parties hereto.” A by-law provided,
“Sec. 13. In case (a) a regular member shall cease to be the owner of the newspaper described in his or its contract with the Corporation, or (b) a newspaper represented by regular membership shall cease regular publication, the membership shall automatically, and without action by the Corporation, become an associate membership.”
The quoted by-law does not provide, nor was there any evidence, that becoming an “associate membership” terminated the contract or excused the giving of the two year notice of termination. There was a further provision of the contract that
“Upon the sale or transfer of the business of the Member to which *780this agreement relates, the Member shall cause the Member’s successor to agree in writing to fulfill the terms and conditions of this agreement during the term hereof and to apply for membership in the Associated Press in the same class as the Member.”
The Times-Star did neither of the acts which would have terminated its liability — giving notice or having a successor assume its liability — and clearly breached its contract. It offered evidence, objection to some of which was sustained, to show various instances where the Associated Press had not enforced the two year notice provision against members who had gone out of business. The circumstances of these cases were not shown to have been the same as the transaction whereby the Times-Star paper was sold ■to Scripps for $3,710,000. But in any event forbearance from enforcing its contract with others did not foreclose AP’s insistence on its contract rights against appellant.
b) Recoverable damages. Appellant urged that AP failed to prove its damages. It is not disputed that when Times-Star discontinued payment of its weekly assessments such revenue was lost to AP. Appellant offered evidence that during the two year period involved AP obtained new revenue in excess of the total assessments payable by Times-Star during such period by increasing its membership through the additions of radio stations and other media. Such additional revenue, however, did not take the place of the loss accruing from appellant’s refusal to pay. The evidence also showed that during the entire period involved AP had a deficit and that notwithstanding revenue from new members it had a net operating deficit in the approximate sum of $600,000. The Distriqt Judge spoke on this subject as follows:
“Under the by-laws of Plaintiff, it can recoup losses of revenue from other members in The Association by use of its assessment formula. First, an actual loss is sustained by Plaintiff when a newspaper discontinues its news services without paying its contractual obligations. The Plaintiff corporation, being a nonprofit corporation, then finds it necessary to meet its expenses through an increased assessment of the membership. Whatever losses the corporation incurs for any reasons must be assessed to the membership. The members, through the increased, assessment, do not eliminate the loss, they only subsidize the corporation. Thus Plaintiff sustained a real loss when Defendant cancelled the contract.”
I consider that the Associated Press’ method of obtaining needed revenue by a formula for assessing its members is not unlike a utility’s recovery of its costs by spreading rates among the users of its power. In City of Memphis for and on Behalf of Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Ford Motor Co., 304 F.2d 845 (CA 6, 1962) we held that the minimum monthly rate that Ford Motor had agreed to pay for a fixed period was recoverable in full upon Ford’s breach of contract, even though the Memphis utility was not required thereafter to generate and deliver the power contracted for by Ford.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.

. Taft-Ingalls Corporation is the same corporation that published The Cincinnati Times-Star newspaper through a subsidiary, and its previous corporate name was The Cincinnati Times-Star Company. I shall refer to it herein as Times-Star.

. This witness’ firm, Lybrand, Ross Brothers and Montgomery, engaged by Times-Star’s counsel, sent ten or more of their people into the home office of AP as part of an attempted cost study in the hope, X assume, that it would be of significant support to Times-Star’s case.

. The majority opinion quotes from a stipulation describing the news classifications carried over the respective wires. Immediately following the quoted portion, the stipulation provides, “Additional evidence about these circuits and about the AP’s leased wire news service to its members will be presented at the trial.” The District Judge made his decision from the entire record.

. “Mr. Cooper advised the Board that four members served on the Pacific Northwest trunk circuit desired to discontinue the wire facilities for the financial tabular service and that three members opposed such discontinuance.
“W. H. Cowles stated that the Spokesman-Review and Spokane Daily Chronicle would consent to discontinuance of the tabular wire, if all members concerned came to an agreement to substitute therefor a reduced stock market report to be carried on the regular Associated Press news wire.
“The Board voted that inasmuch as the tabular service had always been an integral part of tke basic news report, which should not be permitted to disintegrate and inasmuch as assessment reductions had been given for the local element where requested for discontinuance, the present arrangements be continued until the members concerned unanimously agreed otherwise.” (Apparently about 1943.)

. An AP executive testified that “ * * * over the years it has been discussed and after an explanation of the impracticability of attempting to deliver a news report on one of several trunk wires, there has not been, to my knowledge, a request for one.”

. Times-Star’s position in this regard is emphasized by the following colloquy between the District Judge and Times-Star’s counsel:
Court: “ * * * there was absolutely no evidence whatever that there was' — ■ that it [the contract] was entered into under a complaint.”
Counsel: “We don’t have to show that, X want that understood, that is basic.”

. As far as this record discloses, a contention that AP’s plan of operation was an illegal tying arrangement made its first appearance in Times-Star’s pleadings after it was sued for breach of contract