UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION



THORTON ELLIOTT, EUGENE McQUEEN,   )

VERNON JOHNSON, MICHAEL CHOICE,    )

FAMIOUS FRENCH, MARCUS LYONS,      )

DARRYL LANE, RONNIE NELLON,        )

CHARLES J. BEYER, JACKIE SMITH,    )

SAUL LOCKETT, ZEKE RAND, LEO       )

JOHNSON, LAWRENCE RAND, ROBERT     )

JOHNSON, LOUIS DAVIS, ANTOINETTE   )

JOHNSON, AND HUBERT WEBB,          ) 

                                   )

          Plaintiffs,              )

                                   )

       V.                          )   NO. 95 C 5440

                                   )

THE UNITED CENTER, A JOINT         )

VENTURE f/k/a METRO-CHICAGO        )

SPORTS STADIUM JOINT VENTURE       )   INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

                                   )   

          Defendant.               )   JUDGE CASTILLO



              PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

                MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION



     Plaintiffs, by counsel, file this memorandum of law in support

of their motion for preliminary injunction and state:

                          INTRODUCTION



NOTE:

     The core antitrust concern with competition reflects a

fundamental belief that economic questions generally are best

determined in the American economy through a process of

independent, competitive decision making by profit-seeking firms

striving to serve consumers who seek maximum satisfaction through

their choices among market alternatives.  Antitrust law aims to

protect economic competition by prohibiting collusive,

exclusionary, and monopolistic practices that restrain competition

and thereby pose a danger of increased prices and reduced output,

quality, and innovation. (The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court

of the United States, 1992, pg. 34).





     Plaintiffs, vendors of peanuts outside of the United Center,

bring this action against Defendant, a joint venture which owns and

operates the United Center, for violations of section 2 of the

Sherman Antitrust Act.  Defendant currently prohibit all patrons of

the United Center from bringing any food, including peanuts into

the stadium.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the food

ban and granting them the right to compete with the Defendant for

the sale of food concessions at the United Center.  Plaintiffs

respectfully request this Court order Defendant to cease and desist

from this unlawful monopolization of food concessions at the United

Center. Plaintiffs are entitled to such preliminary injunctive

relief as set forth more fully below as they have both a property

and liberty interest in their ability to earn a living, have and

continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of defendant's

unlawful refusal to deal, have no other adequate remedy at law, and

have a substantial likelihood of success  on the merits. Moreover,

the balance of hardships, and the public interest, clearly favors

plaintiffs.

                         OPERATIVE FACTS

     In September of 1994, with the opening of the United Center,

the owners of new stadium, Jerry Reinsdorf and Bill Wirtz,

instituted a policy prohibiting all food from being brought into

the new stadium. Upon entrance into the stadium, patrons are now

visually searched for food and, if any is found, it is confiscated

by stadium security.

      The new policy has resulted in patrons no longer buying

peanuts from the vendors on the public property surrounding the new

stadium and has thus eliminated the livelihoods of many of the

vendors who have historically hawked peanuts outside of the

stadium. To be fair, a limited number of vendors continue to

survive by hawking peanuts (a) to patrons willing to attempt to

"smuggle" in their peanuts in violation of the new stadium policy

or (b) to patrons unaware of the stadium prohibition. Yet even the

vendors who continue to work report significant reductions in sales

of up to two-thirds from previous years.

                  PUBLICLY STATED JUSTIFICATION

     The publicly stated justification for the policy is that it is

a cost-control measure to decrease clean-up costs. Stadium

officials assert that peanut shells increase the costs of clean-up.

To support their assertion, stadium officials point to the fact

that peanuts are no longer sold inside the United Center. While

this argument may appear plausible at first blush, upon analysis it

has little merit. The fact is, peanuts do not increase clean-up

costs. This assertion is supported by two major claims made by

industry professionals. 

     First, professionals in the janitorial services business

report that peanuts and popcorn are both cleaned up the same way:

a blower is used to blow the popcorn and peanut shells into big

piles, and then both are picked up by hand. If popcorn is sold

inside the stadium, which it is,peanuts add little, if any,

additional clean-up costs. 

     Second, the costs of clean-up are the same whether peanuts are

sold or not. The owner of one of Chicago's largest janitorial

services companies has stated that in all his years in the business

he has never seen a contract to clean a stadium based on the type

of food sold inside the stadium. Rather, janitorial contracts for

stadiums are determined by two principle factors: (1) square

footage and (2) the number of people in attendance. From a cost-

control measure, it is thus irrelevant whether peanuts are sold

inside the stadium. 

                      ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION

     In all likelihood consists of a combination of the following

reasons:

     (1) Monopolization of Food Concessions: It would be silly to

ignore the most obvious reason for instituting the new policy: it

affords the owners of the United Center a 100% monopoly on

concessions of food at the stadium. This will result in ever

greater profits in concessions sales for the stadium owners.  No

longer able to buy an inexpensive bag of peanuts outside of the

stadium to eat during the games, fans are now forced to eat only

what is sold inside the stadium and only at the monopoly prices

sold on the inside. Some will scoff at the amount of money at

stake, dismissing this case as one of "mere peanuts" (figuratively

and literally), but one peanut vendors put the situation into

perspective when he quipped, "A $2.00 bag of peanuts on the outside

satisfies an $8.00 junk food craving on the inside." 

     (2) Promotion of Food Sales in the Skyboxes: Arguably, the

prohibition on food also helps prevent skybox owners from bringing

in their own dinners to the skyboxes. Currently, skybox patrons are

not allowed to bring in their own dinners, say a box of Kentucky

Fried Chicken, to the skyboxes; rather, if skybox patrons want to

eat, they are rqeuired to buy their dinner or snacks via either the

skybox catering service or the general concessions stands. 

     To be fair, this probably constitutes a legitimate business 

justification. Stadium owners face huge fixed costs in providing a

food catering service for skybox owners. In order to recover these

fixed costs, it is arguably necessary for a certain number of

skybox patrons to use the stadium's food service. To guarantee this

minimum usage, stadium owners may feel that it is necessary to

prevent any and all skybox patrons from bringing in their own food.

     But this justification--call it the "fixed-cost

justification"--is not valid for prohibiting peanuts to the general

public. Even though the stadium owners also accrue fixed costs in

operating the general food concessions, such fixed costs do not

make it economically necessary for the owners to ban peanuts. The

owners would have to claim that the concessions would not be

profitable if peanuts (or other small snack foods) were allowed in

the stadium. This is an absurd claim. The long history of allowing

peanuts inside the old Chicago Stadium, combined with what

qualifies as the normal business practice among the majority of

major league sports stadiums of allowing in peanuts, suggests the

prohibition on peanuts is not necessary to cover the fixed costs of

opearting a general concessions opearation. 

     In short, though plaintiffs are willing to admit that it may

be reasonable for skybox owners to be prohibited from bringing in

their own catered dinners into skyboxes, it is unreasonable to

prohibit peanuts from being brought in by stadium patrons. In

contrast to prohibiting fill dinners, there is no valid business

justification for prohibiting peanuts.

     (3) A Racial Matter: The vast bulk of the vendors are black;

the vast bulk of the stadium's patrons are white. It is not a

stretch to believe that the owners of the stadium may feel that

their patrons would be more comfortable coming to the West Side

with as few poor, black faces greeting them upon arrival as is

possible.

                            ARGUMENT

     In violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, the owners of

the United Center are using their monopoly control of access to the

United Center and the presentation of live NHL and NBA sports in

Chicago to create monopoly control of food concessions sales at the

United Center.

     Peanut vendors compete in the same geographic and product

market as the concessionaires inside the stadium. The relevant

geographic market is sports and other entertainment events

occurring at the United Center located in Chicago, Illinois at 1901

W. Madison Ave. Geography speaking, peanuts are the only food sold

on the public sidewalks outside of the United Center, and peanut

vendors are the only direct competitors to food concessions sold at

the stadium. The vendors sell exclusively to stadium patrons on the

day of the games. Though it is true that the vendors are restricted

to selling their goods on the public sidewalks surrounding the

stadium,  they sell their goods solely to stadium patrons and

solely during stadium events.  

     In terms of product market, peanuts constitute a "substitute

good" that is "reasonably interchangeable" with the other junk food

sold inside the stadium, i.e., popcorn, candy, licorice, pretzels.

     By prohibiting stadium patrons from bringing in peanuts to the

United Center, the owners have effectively eliminated all

competition in the market for concession sales at the United

Center. Their actions harm consumer welfare by reducing consumer

choice and potentially raising prices for food concessions at the

United Center.

     Not all actions which harm competition is prohibited under

Section 2. Only action which is determined to be anticompetitive is

prohibited. The existence of a legitimate efficiency justification

undermines a claim of anticompetitive behavior. Section 2 cases all

come down to the same question: Are the monopolist's actions

anticompetitive? That is to say, are the actions of the monopolist

meant merely to foreclose competition, gain a competitive

advantage, or destroy a competitor, or are they based on a

legitimate business purpose? Sometimes courts use the phrase

"exclusionary behavior" or "predatory behavior" to describe the

same thing, but whether it is called "anticompetitive,"

"exclusionary," or "predatory," it is behavior without a legitimate

business purpose.

     Courts have established two different "tests" to help

determine whether the behavior of a monopolist is anticompetitive.

They are (1) the essential facilities test and (2) the intent test.

Recent case law suggests these two tests are not separate and

distinct but overlap in significant ways. For practical purposes,

however, the two tests are probably best viewed separately, which

is how we propose to view them in this case. 

     Whehter separate and distinct or one and the same, the tests

are mere guidelines and by themselves cannot answer the ultimate

question, which is whether a certain type of behavior is

anticompetitive and thus a violation of the antitrust laws. That

question can only be determined by a careful analysis of the

particular facts of the case and ultimately comes down to the

question whether a legitimate business purpose exists for the

defendants' actions. 

     In this case, there seems to be no legitimate business purpose

to prohibit peanuts into the United Center. The publicly stated

justification for doing so is that peanuts increase clean-up costs.

But industry experts say this is a pretext: (1) peanuts and popcorn

are cleaned up the same way, and if popcorn is sold in the United

Center, which it is, then peanuts add no additional clean-up costs;

(2) contracts to clean-up stadiums are not based on the foods sold

inside but on the square footage of the stadium and the number of

patrons who use the stadium.

                         LEGAL ARGUMENT

     Section 2 of the Sherman Act provides in pertinent part:

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize...any

part of the trade or commerce among the several States...shall be

deemed guilty of a felony..." 15 U.S.C. @ 2 (1988). The offense of

monopoly under @2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the

possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the

willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished

from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product,

business acumen, or historic accident. United States v. Grinnell

Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). In order to violate @2,

therefore, the monopolist must possess monopoly power and must also

use that power anticompetitively. 

     The primary type of anticompetitive conduct in section 2

cases--and the type of conduct at issue in this case--is a

defendant's refusal to deal with a competitor. The most common type

of refusal-to-deal cases involves monopoly leveraging. Monopoly

leveraging occurs when a vertically integrated monopolist -- i.e.,

a monopolist that operates on several levels of the market -- uses

its monopoly power on one level of the market to gain a competitive

advantage on another level of the market. For example, in United

States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), a group of

railroads servicing the St. Louis area also owned the only railroad

terminal that provided access to the city. The terminal owners used

their monopoly power over the terminal to overcharge other

railroads for access to the terminal and thereby to gain a

competitive advantage in the downstream market for railroad service

in St. Louis. The majority of refusal-to-deal cases under section

2 fall into this monopoly-leveraging category. See, for example,

Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 93 S.Ct. 1022,

35 L.Ed.2d 359 (1973); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S.

1, 65 S. Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945);  Eastman Kodak Co. v.

Southern Photo Materials Co.,273 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed.

684 (1927); Terminal R.R., 224 U.S. at 383, 32 S. Ct. at 507;

Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz, 807 F. 2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986), cert.

denied 480 U.S. 934, 107 S.Ct. 1574, 94 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987); MCI

Communications Corp. v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert.

denied, 464 U.S. 891, 104 S.Ct. 234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).

     The key to any type of refusal-to-deal case is that the

circumstances surrounding the refusal to deal must give rise to an

inference of anticompetitive intent. Intent is rarely established

by direct evidence. By necessity it is established by

circumstantial evidence: the nature of the defendant's conduct and

its effect on competition in the market demonstrate that the

defendant intended to foreclose competition in the relevant market.

     Thus, in order to determine whether a refusal to deal

constitutes anticompetitive conduct under section 2, courts have

developed two basic tests: (1) the "essential facilities doctrine"

and (2) the "intent test." These tests aid the court in weighing

and evaluating the circumstantial evidence in a given case to

determine whether that evidence yields an inference of an intent to

foreclose competition.

                      ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 

      The essential facilities doctrine holds that an antitrust

defendant may have acted anticompetitively if the circumstances of

a case satisfy a four-part test: (1) the defendant is a monopolist

in control of a facility or resource that is essential to a

competitor's operation; (2) the facility or resource cannot

practically or reasonably be duplicated by competitors; (3) the

monopolist refuses to deal with competitors; and (4) the monopolist

could feasibly deal with competitors. See MCI, 708 F.2d at 912. If

the four elements of this standard are satisfied, an inference of

the defendant's anticompetitive intent may arise and thus justify

the imposition under section 2. 

                       The Four-Prong Test

     Under the essential facilities doctrine, where, as here, a

company exerts monopoly control over a facility essential to the

competitor's business, that company may not refuse to deal with its

competitor, Otter Tail Co. v United States, 410 U.S. 366, 93 S.Ct.

1022 (1973); Aspen Skiing Highlands Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738

F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984); MCI Communications Corp. v. A.T.T., 708

F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983). These cases establish a four-prong test

as  guide to evaluate circumstantial evidence to determine whether

the defendant refused to deal with another firm with

anticompetitive intent: (1) that defendant is a monopolist in

control of a facility or resource essential to a competitor's

operation; (2) that the facility or resource cannot practically or

reasonably be duplicated; (3) that the monopolist refuses to deal

with competitors; and (4) that the monopolist could reasonably deal

with competitors. MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel.

Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.).           

     Here the facts sworn to in Plaintiff's verified complaint

establish each of the elements of defendant's illegal refusal to

deal under the essential facilities doctrine. 

                            Prong-One

     The first prong of the test requires that the defendant be a

monopolist who controls an essential facility. Taken in parts, this

prong of the test really has two separate requirements: (1) the

defendant be a monopolist and (2) the facility at issue be

essential. Both elements are satisfied in this case. As the owners

of the United Center, Defendants have a monopoly control over

access to the United Center.

     The second element requires that the facility be "essential."

Courts have offered several definitions as to what qualifies as

"essential:" 

          1. "As the word essential indicates, a plaintiff must

show more than an inconvenience, or even some economic loss; he

must show that an alternative to the facility is not feasible."

Twin Labs 900 F.2d. at 570. 

          2. "To be 'essential' a facility need not be

indispensable; it is sufficient if duplication of the facility

would be economically infeasible and if denial of its use inflicts

a severe handicap on potential market entrants." Hecht v. Pro-

Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982, 991 (D.C. Cir., 1977). 

          3. "[A] facility becomes essential if, in restricting

competitors' access to that facility, a monopolist gains a

competitive advantage in another level of the market--that is, a

market downstream or upstream from the market containing the

facility itself." Consolidated Gas Company of Florida v. City Gas

Company of Florida, 912 F.2d 1262, 1292 (11th Cir.,1990). 

   Under any of these definitions, access to the United Center

qualifies as essential to Plaintiffs who are trying to compete with

concession sales at the United Center. People buy food concessions

to enjoy while watching the game. If stadium patrons can't bring

peanuts into the stadium, there is no purpose in buying them. 

                            Prong Two

      Prong two of the four-prong test requires that the

competition be unable to practically or reasonably duplicate the

facility. Duplication is impossible where, as here, the essential

facility is a natural or actual monopoly incapable of reproduction.

                           Prong Three

     The third prong of the four-prong test requires a refusal to

deal on the part of the monopolist. The United Center has

instituted a policy this year that prohibits all food from being

brought into the stadium. Patrons are scrutinized for food prior to

entering the stadium and, if any is found, are required to discard

the food.

     Defendants may argue that the third prong of this test has not

been met because the defendants have not refused to deal with a

competitor. They will argue that Plaintiffs can still hawk their

foods outside the stadium and that all that is being prevented is

food from being brought inside the stadium. But Aspen Highlands

Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 472 U.S. 587, 105 S.Ct. 2847

(1985) makes clear that a monopolist's refusal to deal with the

customers of a competitor constitutes a refusal to deal when some

cooperation is required for competition to exist.

     In Aspen, the Supreme Court held that a competitor's refusal

to deal with another competitor violated the Sherman Act. The case

involved concessions for skiing on four mountains in Aspen,

Colorado. One company had the concession for three mountains. The

other company held a concession for one mountain. Over the years,

the companies had agreed to package ticket sales to permit skiers

to pay one fee to ski at all four mountains if they chose. however,

at some point, the owner of the concession to the three mountains

decided it no longer wanted to package tickets with its competitor,

and refused to deal with it. As Judge Posner wrote, "Aspen

Highlands is not a conventional monopoly refusal-to-deal case like

Otter Tail because Aspen Highlands was never a customer of Aspen

Skiing; the skiers are the customers. But it is like the essential

facilities cases in that the plaintiff could not compete with the

defendant without being able to offer its customers access to the

defendant's larger facilities." Olympia Equipment Leasing Company

v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 797 F.2d 370, 377 (1986).

                           Prong Four

     The fourth prong requires that the monopolist could reasonably

deal with the competitor. This is easily shown. Peanuts have been

allowed inside the old Chicago Stadium since it was first built in

1927. Peanuts are allowed in every other sports stadium in Chicago.

In addition, peanuts are allowed in almost every sports stadium in

the United States. Quite honestly, there appears to be nothing

unique about the United Center that prevents peanuts from being

allowed inside.

                   LEGITIMATE BUSINESS PURPOSE

     A fair reading of the essential facility cases also reveals

that the four-prong test is merely a guide to help evaluate the

circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant acted --

i.e., refused to deal --with an anticompetitive intent. Not all

refusals to deal on the part of a monopolist are ipso facto anti-

competitive. Thus, the test only has validity only to the extent

that they enable such a determination. Indeed, the fourth-prong

requirement of "reasonableness" explicitly turns the four-prong

test into a "reasonableness test," thereby bringing us to the

ultimate question of this case, which is whether or not there

exists a legitimate business purpose for prohibiting peanuts inside

the stadium. If such a reason exists, it would make the defendants'

refusal to admit peanuts "reasonable" and thus plaintiffs would

fail to satisfy the fourth-prong of the essential facilities test.

The four-prong test in actuality merely provides a shorthand

formula for inferring the presence of anticompetitive intent when

the circumstances of a case follow a certain pattern.

                           INTENT TEST

     In various contexts courts have employed an intent test under

which a "business is free to deal with whomever it pleases so long

as it has no 'purpose to create or maintain a monopoly.'" Byars,

supra, 609 F.2d at 855 (quoting United States v. Colgate & Co., 250

U.S. 300, 307, 39 S.Ct. 465, 468, 63 L.Ed 992 (1919).  These cases

focus on the intent and competitive effect of the refusal to deal

and not on whether the facility is "essential.' Lorain Journal Co.

v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 72 S.Ct. 181, 96 L.Ed. 162 (1951).

The basis of proving a violation under the intent test is whether

the defendant's intent in refusing to deal or cooperate with the

plaintiff was "to create or maintain a monopoly." Collate, supra,

250 U.S. at 307, 39 S.Ct. at 468.  

     The semimal intent-test case is Loraine Journal Co. v. United

States, 342 U.S. 143, 72 S.Ct 181, 96 L.Ed. 162 (1951), in which a

newspaper publisher was enjoined by the Supreme Court from refusing

to accept advertisement from customers who advertised with

competing radio station. Between 1933 and 1948 the publisher of the

Lorain Journal, a newspaper, was the only local buisness

disseminating news and advertising in that Ohio town. In 1948, a

small radio station was established in a nearby community. In an

effort to destroy its small competitor, and thereby regain its

"pre-1948 substantial monopoly over the mass dissemination of all

news and advertising," the Journal refused to sell advertsing to

persons that patronized the radio station. The court determined

that, after a close discernment of all the facts and circumstances,

it was apparent that the publisher's sole purpose in refusing

advertising was to foster a monopoly. (Note: this section about

Loraine Journal must be expanded: I must explain that according to

the Aspen Court it was Lorain Journal's decision to make a change

in the pattern of its operation that alerted the court to an

anticompetitive intent. This was also the case with Aspen Skiing.

And it also the case with the banning of peanuts. From the S. Ct's

opinion in Aspen Skiing: "Ski Co.'s decision to terminate the all-

Aspen ticket was thus a decsion by a monopolist to make an

important change in the character of the ..." And then qouting

Judge Bork in footnote 31: "In any business, patterns of

distribution develop over time; these may reasonably be thought to

be more efficient than alternative patterns that do not develop. 

The patterns that do develop and persist we may call optimal

patterns. By disturbing optimal distribution patterns one rival can

impose costs upon another, that is, force the other to accept

higher costs." Bork 156.

     Which is precisely the situation in our case. A wide-eyed

review of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case reveals

that the defendant's decision to ban all food, including peanuts,

is a willful attempt to obtain a monopoly: [Note; this section must

be filled out. We must give all the reasons for why this is not a

legitimate business move.] (1) The long history of peanuts having

been allowed in the old Chicago Stadium; (2) the fact that an

overwhelming majority of sports stadiums in the country still allow

peanuts inside their stadiums, which shows that it is an ordinary

business practice to sell peanuts in new and old stadiums, and (3)

the complete absence of any legitimate business justification for

banning peanuts reveals that, excluding the possibility that there

is something unique about the United Center which makes it

different from all other stadiums in the U.S., the only explanation

for defendant's actions is an intent to create a monopoly in

violation in violation of sec. 2.  

     Courts have made it clear that a powerful tool to help

determine whether something is a legitimate business purpose is

whether it is an ordinary business practice. In this case, the

prohibition on peanuts is the opposite of an ordinary business

practice. Peanuts have been sold at, and allowed into, sporting

events for time immemorial. Peanuts are allowed into, and sold at,

every other sports stadium in Chicago. Peanuts have been allowed

into, and sold at, the old Chicago Stadium from the time it opened

in 1927. 22 of the other 25 NHL hockey rinks in the U.S. and Canada

sell peanuts inside the stadium. None prohibit their patrons from

bringing them inside.

     In this paragraph, I must analogize this case to the Supreme

Court's opinion in Aspen Skiing. The Supreme Ct. did not even

consider the question whether the mountains were an essential

facililty, but focussed only on intent, finding that a change in

buiness practice and the absence of an efficiency justification was

enough.

                    POSNER'S OLYMPIA OPINION

     Probably want to put a paragraph or two about Posner's Olympia

Opinion and how even a jurist and scholar as cautious about an

expansive reading of the antitrust laws as Judge Posner would

recognize this case as a violation. 

     1. I should then acknowledge that Aspen can be read very

broadly, but we are only asking this court to read it on its most

narrowest terms, indeed on the same terms as Judge Posner read it

in Olympia Equipment, which is that "a monopolist may be guilty of

monopolization if it refuses to cooperate with a competitor in

circumstances where some cooperation is indispensable to effective

competition." 

     2. I must quote Posner in Olympia as saying, "Conjoined with

other ethat lack of business justification may indicate probable

anticompetitive effect."

     3. Finally, must reiterate Posner's thoughts in Olympia about

the essential facility cases be well-accepted examples of

violations of the antitrust laws.

                           CONCLUSION

     1. The conclusion should be about the antitrust laws trying to

protect consumers. Perhaps quote Posner in Olympia: "Most

businessmen don't like their competitors, or for that matter

competition. They want to make as much money as possible and

getting monopoly is one way of making a lot of money. That is fine,

however, so long as they do not use methods calculated to make

consumers worse off in the long run." Anticompetitive acts like

this one would harm consumers in the long-run.

     2. 

(Back to OPENAIR-MARKET NET)