Washington Law Review


The Gypsum decision supplies the proper occasion for a renewed effort to sort out and line up the Court's pronouncements since Trans-Missouri concerning the respective functions in cases arising under section 1 of proof of anticompetitive purpose and effect. Once this is done, a reasonably coherent body of doctrine emerges and the unresolved issues come more clearly into focus. The first two sections of this article deal with purpose and effect as determinants, respectively, of "restraint of trade" and of "contract, combination . . . and conspiracy." The third section takes up the problems that arise when the doctrine that bad purpose need not be shown in section 1 cases—a doctrine developed primarily in suits in equity—is applied to criminal cases and civil actions for treble damages.

First Page