Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 US 294 - Supreme Court 1962

The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it

It is axiomatic that the federal antitrust laws "were enacted for `the protection of competition, not competitors.'"

—use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it. However, within this broad market, well-defined submarkets may exist which, in themselves, constitute product markets for antitrust purposes.... The boundaries of such a submarket may be determined by examining such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket …

"Congress used the words `may be substantially to lessen competition'... to indicate that its concern was with probabilities, not certainties. "

—chain operations are beneficial to consumers. Their expansion is not rendered unlawful by the mere fact that small independent stores may be adversely affected. It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects. But we cannot fail to recognize Congress' desire to promote competition through the protection of viable, small, locally owned businesses. Congress …

O] nly a further examination of the particular market—its structure, history, and probable future—can provide the appropriate setting for judging the probable anticompetitive effect of the merger

—determining the three relevant product submarkets to be "men, women's, and children's shoes," because "each has characteristics peculiar to itself rendering it generally noncompetitive with the others," among other factors

As with a product market, a relevant geographic market must "correspond to the commercial realities of the industry and be economically significant."

The Supreme Court has long mandated that trial courts should resolve civil matters fairly but without undue cost.

—the Court reviewed the legislative history of the most recent amendments to the Act and found that'(t) he dominant theme pervading congressional consideration of the 1950 amendments was a fear of what was considered to be a rising tide of economic concentration in the American economy.'