Antitrust & Trade Reg.
Feb. 22, 2002
Hammering It Out
Forum Column - By Jeffrey I. Shinder - An effective remedy in a monopolization case should accomplish three objectives: terminate the illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its illegal conduct and prevent the defendant from engaging in future acts of monopolization. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968).
Forum Column
By Jeffrey I. Shinder
An effective remedy in a monopolization case should accomplish three objectives: terminate the illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its illegal conduct and prevent the defendant from engaging in future acts...
By Jeffrey I. Shinder
An effective remedy in a monopolization case should accomplish three objectives: terminate the illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of its illegal conduct and prevent the defendant from engaging in future acts...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In