Monsanto and the Mothball Fleet of Antitrust

• Author: Richard M. Steuer
• DOI: 10.1177/0003603X8503000101
• Published date: 01 March 1985
• Date: 01 March 1985
• Subject Matter: Article

The Antitrust Bulletin/Spring 1985

Monsanto and the mothball fleet

of

antitrust

BY RICHARD M. STEUER,*GUEST EDITOR

Not so long ago, a number

of

commentators were asking whether

the Colgate doctrine was dead. Now we know that it was not.

It

was in mothballs.

It

was part

of

the mothball fleet

of

antitrust.

In the years following the Second World War, a fair number

of

antitrust precedents were placed in mothballs. Colgate Iwas one.

Appalachian Coals 2was another. White Motor) and, to a degree,

Parker v. Brown,' were still others. Now these precedents are

back, refitted and commanding new attention.'

Partner in the firm

of

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays &Handler,

New York, N.Y.

United States v. Colgate &Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).

2Appalachian Coals Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 (1933).

White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963).

4Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).

5See Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 104 S. Ct. 1464

(1984) (reaffirming Colgate); Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube

Corp., 104 S. Ct. 2731, 2744 (1984) (citing Appalachian Coals); and

NCAA v. Board of Regents of U. of Okla., 104 S. Ct. 2948, 2961-62

(1984) (suggesting that a limited joint selling arrangement may enhance

market-wide competition); Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.,

433 U.S. 36 (1977) (overruling United States v. Arnold, Schwinn &Co.,

388 U.S. 365 (1967), which effectively had overruled White Motor); and

Hoover v. Ronwin, 104 S. Ct. 1989

(1984)

(dispelling certain attacks on

Parker v. Brown).

©1985 by Federal Legal Publications, Inc.