Monopolization

Case Notes Mentioned in discussing availability of estoppel as defense in private antitrust action. 296 F. Supp. 920. One element of conspiracy to monopolize is specific intent to control prices or destroy competition in any line of trade or commerce. Test for specific intent is the same, whether applied to conspiracy or attempt to monopolize. 491 F. Supp. 1199. Defendants lacked necessary market share and hence monopoly power in service jobbing of all tobacco products in Hawaii. 513 F. Supp. 726. Mere formality of separate incorporation is not, without more, sufficient to provide the capability for conspiracy. Parent corporation controlled subsidiary to such a degree that the two entities in substance constitute a single entity incapable of conspiring with itself. 513 F. Supp. 726. Action by shopping center tenant against shopping center owner. 530 F. Supp. 499. Large landowner's monopoly power over own lands not illegal where not used to injure competitors. 594 F. Supp. 1480. Mentioned, where plaintiff alleged that defendants' practice of imposing maximum price restrictions in rebate program for the installation of solar water heaters violated state and federal antitrust law, and summary judgment granted for defendants on plaintiffs' claims based on Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust claims. 409 F. Supp. 2d 1206. Elements of offense of monopoly. 63 H. 289, 627 P.2d 260. Federal statutes and decisions are to be used as guides. 63 H. 289, 627 P.2d 260. Where appellants failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between appellees' "anticompetitive" conduct and appellees' alleged monopoly power, trial court properly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain appellants' attempt to monopolize claim under this section; thus, as appellants failed to prove a violation of chapter 480, appellants had no standing to bring claim for relief under §480-13(a). 91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853. Where economic interest of corporation's officer/majority shareholder's was the same as that of corporation's two wholly-owned subsidiaries, officer/majority shareholder could not conspire with the corporation for purposes of §480-4 or this section. 91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853. Where the two companies were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation and shared a singular economic interest, they could not constitute a plurality of actors for purposes of a conspiracy under §480-4 or this section. 91 H. 224, 982 P.2d 853.