Nov 05, 2007
Originally published in the Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 281, 1956. Reprinted with special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Northwestern University Law Review. In this note we do not attempt to predict the future of the anti-trust laws. Rather we wish to direct attention to certain problem areas for study. We assume for the purposes of this discussion that an over-riding belief in both free enterprise and in competition will prevail over future possible NRA attempts. We assume also that despite the extension of a government regulation of one form or another, there will still be a place for regulation by competition. The ability of the antitrust laws in weathering NRA and government regulation attempts in the past provides a basis for assuming the laws will continue. The durability of the antitrust laws is perhaps their main characteristic. In large measure, this is a common law durability, built on a case by case development, and exhibiting that flexibility is now limited by particularizing legislation enacted to accompany the Sherman Act. Throughout its history, indeed, the Sherman Act has exhibited the twin tendencies of flexibility and ambiguity, on the one hand, and a drive for certainty and automaticity, on the other. At the moment, the drive for certainty and automaticity seems paramount, but not without criticism and reaction. Much of this drive for certainty rests not so much on the concept of fair warning, which is inherent in any idea of the rule of law, but rather more on the belief that new and automatic applications of the laws will catch objectionable conduct and effects in their incipiency. The idea of incipiency seems to rest of economic doctrines, or, conclusions drawn from experience. Because of these doctrines or conclusions, certain types of conduct are deemed harmful in themselves, although the harm in the particular case may not be visible. Economic theory or experience thus substitutes for an observed effect. Download the entire article available in the column on the left.
Featured News
Former DOJ Antitrust Lawyer Returns to Sullivan & Cromwell
Jul 27, 2026 by
CPI
Trip.com Accepts $765 Million Antitrust Penalty as China Concludes Monopoly Investigation
Jul 27, 2026 by
CPI
Google Seeks to Exclude EU DMA Decision From Evidence in UK Shopping Damages Trial
Jul 27, 2026 by
CPI
Judge Allows Beef Price-Fixing Class Action to Move Toward Trial
Jul 27, 2026 by
CPI
Japanese Banks Combine Ship Finance Operations to Form $12.8B Maritime Lending Platform
Jul 27, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes