Charlton v. Cortez Development Corp.

“[N]umerous courts have found a market share of 30% or higher to be insufficient, by itself, to prove a dangerous probability of monopolization (citing cases)” | “A subsequent failure to achieve monopoly status cannot itself vitiate a claim of attempted monopoly where other evidence substantially supports the attempt without eviscerating the entire attempt offense.” | "[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation." (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979 | "It is now well established that any rule of reason analysis requires a showing of anticompetitive market effect. To hold otherwise would ignore the very purpose of the antitrust laws which were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors." | “It is now well established that any rule of reason analysis requires a showing of anti-competitive market effect. To hold otherwise would ignore the very purpose of the antitrust laws which were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors.” | "[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation.” (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979 | collecting cases applying this principle to restrictive covenants | noncompetition covenants ancillary to sale of business | noncompetition covenants ancillary to sale of business | appeal of district court’s findings after bench trial | same; parties consent to trial before, the magistrate | 30% market share is not enough | 30% market share is not enough | 30% market share is not enough | 30% market share is not enough