Now you are working to falsely stereotype me. Again.
FYI: the SCOTUS does not define monopoly. And in none of the cases you mentioned was the corporation in question charged with "being a monopoly". Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the logic behind what they were actually charged with and the logic behind the anti-trust laws. An "intent to monopolize" is not the same thing as a monopoly. A distinction you conveniently ignore.
Here is a real good article on monopolies and anti-trust policy and here is what is has to way on two of the cases you mentioned:
One of the most famous (and misunderstood) antitrust cases in history is US v. Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911).
The popular explanation of this case is that Standard Oil monopolized the oil industry, destroyed rivals through the use of predatory price-cutting, raised prices to consumers, and was punished by the Supreme Court for these proven transgressions. Nice story but totally false.
First, Standard never even monopolized petroleum refining, let alone the entire oil industry (production, transportation, refining, distribution) which would have been an impossibility. Even in domestic refining, Standard's share of the market declined for decades prior to the antitrust case (64% in 1907) and there were at least 137 competitors (firms like Shell, Gulf, Texaco) in oil refining in 1911.
Second, although predatory practices were alleged by the government at trial, Standard offered rebuttal on all counts. Neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court ever made any specific finding of guilt on the conflicting charges of predatory practices.
Third, petroleum market outputs increased and prices declined for decades during the alleged period of "monopolization" by Standard Oil. For example, prices for kerosene (the industry's major product) were 30 cents a gallon in 1869 and fell to about 6 cents a gallon at the time of the antitrust trial.
Finally, the Supreme Court broke up the Standard Oil holding company not because of any demonstrable harm to consumers (there was none) but because it discerned some vague "intent" to monopolize through Standard's many mergers, an "intent" that just as clearly never succeeded in producing any monopoly. Yet generations of economic and legal commentators have been misled about monopoly and the alleged efficacy of antitrust policy because of the "facts everybody knows" concerning the Standard Oil antitrust case.
The antitrust case against the American Tobacco Company (US v. American Tobacco, 1911) is similar in many respects to Standard Oil. American Tobacco put together a large diversified tobacco company through merger with smaller specialty companies. Yet they were never able to monopolize the tobacco industry as the government alleged, nor were they able to raise prices of tobacco products. Outputs increased and prices fell for decades prior to the antitrust suit. Many thousands of cigarette, smoking tobacco, snuff, and cigar companies competed against the American companies and ease of entry and availability of raw materials (leaf tobacco obtained at auction) made vigorous competition inevitable. The American Tobacco holding company was broken up by the Supreme Court because of some vague intent to monopolize (again, as evidenced through mergers) but, like Standard Oil, there was a total absence of demonstrable (economic) injury to consumers of tobacco products.
The popular explanation of this case is that Standard Oil monopolized the oil industry, destroyed rivals through the use of predatory price-cutting, raised prices to consumers, and was punished by the Supreme Court for these proven transgressions. Nice story but totally false.
First, Standard never even monopolized petroleum refining, let alone the entire oil industry (production, transportation, refining, distribution) which would have been an impossibility. Even in domestic refining, Standard's share of the market declined for decades prior to the antitrust case (64% in 1907) and there were at least 137 competitors (firms like Shell, Gulf, Texaco) in oil refining in 1911.
Second, although predatory practices were alleged by the government at trial, Standard offered rebuttal on all counts. Neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court ever made any specific finding of guilt on the conflicting charges of predatory practices.
Third, petroleum market outputs increased and prices declined for decades during the alleged period of "monopolization" by Standard Oil. For example, prices for kerosene (the industry's major product) were 30 cents a gallon in 1869 and fell to about 6 cents a gallon at the time of the antitrust trial.
Finally, the Supreme Court broke up the Standard Oil holding company not because of any demonstrable harm to consumers (there was none) but because it discerned some vague "intent" to monopolize through Standard's many mergers, an "intent" that just as clearly never succeeded in producing any monopoly. Yet generations of economic and legal commentators have been misled about monopoly and the alleged efficacy of antitrust policy because of the "facts everybody knows" concerning the Standard Oil antitrust case.
The antitrust case against the American Tobacco Company (US v. American Tobacco, 1911) is similar in many respects to Standard Oil. American Tobacco put together a large diversified tobacco company through merger with smaller specialty companies. Yet they were never able to monopolize the tobacco industry as the government alleged, nor were they able to raise prices of tobacco products. Outputs increased and prices fell for decades prior to the antitrust suit. Many thousands of cigarette, smoking tobacco, snuff, and cigar companies competed against the American companies and ease of entry and availability of raw materials (leaf tobacco obtained at auction) made vigorous competition inevitable. The American Tobacco holding company was broken up by the Supreme Court because of some vague intent to monopolize (again, as evidenced through mergers) but, like Standard Oil, there was a total absence of demonstrable (economic) injury to consumers of tobacco products.
