Stephen D. Susman of Dallas, Texas, writes from the view of the private
plaintiff. He decries the "damage . . . done to the antitrust laws in the
name of efficiency and world competition." He describes how, even
through the years of federal nonenforcement, the private plaintiff has been
increasingly handicapped as antitrust litigant and is now frequently thrown
out of court when the court (not the jury) determines that the weight of
evidence is against it, or when the court accepts without factual inquiry
defendants' Chicago School theory that this plaintiff could not have suffered
The final essay is by professor and former dean Robert Pitofsky of
Georgetown Law Center, who gives a crisp retrospective, shows how the
Supreme Court has generally rejected Chicago extremism, and stakes out
ground for antitrust's future.
See Rill, Antitrust Enforcement: An Agenda for the 1990's, Remarks Before the
23d Annual New England Antitrust Conference, Nov. 3, 1989, printed at 57 Antitrust &
Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA) 671 ( Nov. 9. 1989); Steiger, Agenda for the Federal Trade
Commission, Remarks Before the 23d Annual New England Antitrust Conference, Nov.
3, 1989, printed at 57 Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA) 674 ( Nov. 9, 1989).
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Book title: Revitalizing Antitrust in Its Second Century:Essays on Legal, Economic, and Political Policy.
Contributors: Harry First - Editor, Eleanor M. Fox - Editor, Robert Pitofsky - Editor.
Publisher: Quorum Books.
Place of publication: New York.
Publication year: 1991.
Page number: 450.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.