...States, 221 US 1 ; Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 US 231. However, there are certain agreements or practices which because of their pernicious...have caused or the business excuse for their use. This principle of per se unreasonableness not only makes the type of restraints which are proscribed...

...October term, 195T, opinion March 10, 1958. There the Supreme Court said : "However, there are certain agreements or practices which, because of their pernicious...have caused or the business excuse for their use. This principle of per se unreasonableness not only makes the type of restraints which are proscribed...

...proposed here, as I understand it, is not an agreement among competing retailers to fix prices, which if course is a per se violation of the antitrust laws,...therefore Illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the percise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use." Although an agreement to fix or...

...Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1. That category of antitrust violations is made up of "agreements or practices which because of their pernicious...have caused or the business excuse for their use." Id., p. 5. Tying arrangements or agreements by a party "to sell one product but only on the condition...

...utterly without justification and is therefore to be deemed unlawful per se. That is true only of those "agreements or practices which because of their pernicious...have caused or the business excuse for their use." Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 5. Specifically, the per se rule of prohibition has...

...utterly without justification and is therefore to be deemed unlawful per se. That is true only of those "agreements or practices which because of their pernicious...have caused or the business excuse for their use." Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 US 1, 5. Specifically, the per se rule of prohibition has...

...US 231). Within the category of "unreasonable restraints" are certain agreements or practices that because of their "pernicious effect on competition...to be unreasonable and, therefore, illegal without an elaborate inquiry as to precise harm they have caused or business excuse for their use" (Northern...

...US 231). Within the category of "unreasonable restraints" are certain agreements or practices that because of their "pernicious effect on competition...to be unreasonable and, therefore, illegal without an elaborate inquiry as to precise harm they have caused or business excuse for their use" (Northern...

...of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use." As I read this language, it means that once the net anticompetitive effect of a practice is established,...

...the pleadings in another case to demonstrate that such restrictions should now be held per se illegal "because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue." See Northern Pac. Ry. v. United States, 356 US 1, 5 1 1958 1 . For an understanding of these facts,...