Veteto v. Warden

recognizing potential violation based on predatory pricing but finding insufficient evidence in case under consideration | holding AT & T violated section 2 of Sherman Act by refusing to connect MCI to its network, an essential facility | vacating damages award because damages model did not distinguish between damages based on unlawful versus lawful conduct | vacating damages award because damages model did not distinguish between damages based on unlawful versus lawful conduct | rejecting defendants’ suggestion that a 26-day time limit in an antitrust case was too short and that the limit should have been computed in months, not days | “it is essential ... that damages reflect only the losses directly attributable to unlawful competition” | A.T. & T. unlawfully refused to interconnect a long distance competitor with A.T. & T.'s local telephone network | A.T. & T. unlawfully refused to interconnect a long distance competitor with A.T. & T.’s local telephone network | deliberately bringing administrative actions with the knowledge that the agencies involved lacked the authority to take the desired action constitutes sham activity | plaintiff must show control of the essential facility by a monopolist | plaintiff must show control of the essential facility by a monopolist | judgment was remanded for a new trial and damages | rejecting a profit maximization test for predatory pricing | setting forth standards of essential facility doctrine | setting forth standards of essential facility doctrine