Yes, United's business practices are illegal. The judge explained that being big and successful isn't a crime by itself, and United was great at making machines and providing service. However, it stayed on top not just by being good, but by using a system of only leasing machines with long, restrictive contracts designed to lock customers in and shut competitors out. This created unfair barriers that weren't a natural result of being the best. By choosing to do business this way, United illegally protected its monopoly, which is against the law.

Yes, United Shoe Machinery broke the law by controlling too much of the shoe machine market. They used clever business tricks to keep other companies from competing with them. Even though they didn't do anything really mean or nasty, the way they rented out machines and set prices made it too hard for other companies to compete. It's not okay to control so much of the market just because you're big and have been around for a long time. The law says you can't use business tricks to stay on top if those tricks aren't just about being better at making things or having good ideas. United Shoe Machinery needs to change how they do business to give other companies a fair chance.

Concentrations of power, no matter how beneficently they appear to have acted, nor what advantages they seem to possess, are inherently dangerous.

What appears to the outsider to be a sensible, prudent, nay even a progressive policy of the monopolist, may in fact reflect a lower scale of adventurousness and less intelligent risk-taking than would be the case if the enterprise were forced to respond to a stronger industrial challenge.

United is denied the right to exercise effective control of the market by business policies that are not the inevitable consequences of its capacities or its natural advantages.

Defendant having willed the means, has willed the end.

To root out monopolization and to bring United, in the future, in the same class as its competitors, it is necessary not merely to place limitations upon United's leases, but also to require United to offer for sale any machine type which it leases.

Yes. A company that possesses monopoly power and maintains it through business practices that create barriers to entry, even if non-predatory, has monopolized in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. United's market dominance was not solely the result of superior skill, foresight, and industry, but was also maintained by its lease-only policy and other exclusionary business practices. The court determined that United possessed monopoly power, controlling over 75% of the relevant shoe machinery market. While United's initial formation and the quality of its products and services were beyond reproach, its power was also built upon its restrictive lease-only system. This system created 'unnatural barriers' to competition through its 10-year terms, full capacity clauses, discriminatory return charges, and the bundling of service costs. These practices, while 'honestly industrial,' were not economically inevitable and served to unnecessarily exclude actual and potential competition. Following the precedent of United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, the court held that specific intent to monopolize is not required; the intent to engage in the exclusionary practices that maintain the monopoly is sufficient.

Yes, United Shoe Machinery Corporation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the shoe machinery market. The company's leasing system and other business practices allowed it to maintain monopoly power in ways that were not the inevitable consequences of its abilities, efficiencies, or natural advantages. While United's original consolidation and the quality of its products were not grounds for liability, its leasing practices created barriers to competition that went beyond what could be justified by its skills and natural advantages. The leases' long terms, full capacity clauses, and bundled services made it difficult for customers to switch to competitors. United's price discrimination between machine types also showed its ability to exploit market power. Although United did not engage in predatory conduct, under the prevailing interpretation of the Sherman Act from cases like Alcoa, a company can monopolize a market through business practices that are not economically inevitable, even if they are not abusive. United's practices fit this definition of monopolization. The fact that customers were satisfied with United's leases does not negate the anticompetitive effects. While United's research activities were valuable, they did not justify its monopoly position. Therefore, United violated Section 2 by maintaining monopoly power through means beyond what its abilities and efficiencies could justify.

United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot