3 ms·

> To the extent that a law not prosecuted is a law that doesn't exist, you're correct, however I've provided the statutory citation which states that "every" co

> To the extent that a law not prosecuted is a law that doesn't exist, you're correct, however I've provided the statutory citation which states that "every" contract, etc., in restraint of trade, "is declared to be illegal". Laws are not interpreted de novo, to mean whatever you think they mean. In our common-law system, laws are interpreted by the courts, over a long period of jurisprudence. In the case of the Sherman Act, we have over a hundred years of case history to guide us. The courts say that it must be an "unreasonable" restraint of trade. After all, every contract is a restraint of trade! If a grocery store signs a contract with a farm to buy all of their lettuce, then the grocery store isn't going to the central produce market, where everyone has a chance to compete. If Apple signs an agreement with Samsung to source its ARM CPUs, that means that Nvidia doesn't get a chance to compete for the duration of the contract. But that's completely ridiculous, right? They got the chance to compete for the contract. And that's exactly why it's not an antitrust violation. It's a restraint of trade, but it's very much reasonable. Note that the word "unreasonable" doesn't actually appear in the Sherman Act. It just says "restraint of trade." The Courts added this test because they felt it would be counterproductive to interpret the Sherman Act literally. As you're doing.

dredmorbius 13y ago
Laws are not interpreted de novo I'm not contesting that. Nor was I born yesterday. I've asked you to provide references. You haven't.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  > I've asked you to provide references. You haven't. Google. I even gave you the phrase to Google for: "unreasonable restraint of trade." In fact, add the term "every contract," and you'll find thousands of relevant hits, including Supreme Court cases going back a century. If you don't like Googling, then I recommend picking up a good textbook on antitrust law -- "unreasonable" will be in the index. It's just such a fundamental concept to antitrust law. Rivers of ink have been spilled debating what kind of behavior is reasonable and what is unreasonable. What you've just done is the antitrust equivalent of demanding a citation for the sky being blue. I give up. There's no way I can have a productive conversation about antitrust law with someone who aggressively demands citations for even the most basic of concepts. It shows that the primary motive is not to understand the topic at hand, but simply to argue. P.S. Since you like to accuse people of violating the rules of debate, this isn't an "appeal to authority." It's a suggestion that you get a better background in antitrust law before arguing with people about it.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I even gave you the phrase to Google Sure, I can Google. But if you're not talking out of your ass, then you've got specific legal gloss, case history, and decisions you can point to. You're not. Lazy or intellectually dishonest? Hard to tell.

dredmorbius 13y ago

Laws are not interpreted de novo I'm not contesting that. Nor was I born yesterday. I've asked you to provide references. You haven't.

tanzam75 13y ago
> I've asked you to provide references. You haven't. Google. I even gave you the phrase to Google for: "unreasonable restraint of trade." In fact, add the term "every contract," and you'll find thousands of relevant hits, including Supreme Court cases going back a century. If you don't like Googling, then I recommend picking up a good textbook on antitrust law -- "unreasonable" will be in the index. It's just such a fundamental concept to antitrust law. Rivers of ink have been spilled debating what kind of behavior is reasonable and what is unreasonable. What you've just done is the antitrust equivalent of demanding a citation for the sky being blue. I give up. There's no way I can have a productive conversation about antitrust law with someone who aggressively demands citations for even the most basic of concepts. It shows that the primary motive is not to understand the topic at hand, but simply to argue. P.S. Since you like to accuse people of violating the rules of debate, this isn't an "appeal to authority." It's a suggestion that you get a better background in antitrust law before arguing with people about it.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I even gave you the phrase to Google Sure, I can Google. But if you're not talking out of your ass, then you've got specific legal gloss, case history, and decisions you can point to. You're not. Lazy or intellectually dishonest? Hard to tell.