About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 UCLA Alaska L. Rev. 87 (1979-1980)
The Thrust-upon Defense to Monopoly Prosecution in Alaska

handle is hein.journals/uclaak9 and id is 95 raw text is: THE THRUST-UPON DEFENSE TO MONOPOLY PROSECUTION IN ALASKA INTRODUCTION Federal and state antitrust legislation barring monopolies in restraint of trade has always contained a fundamental ambiguity with respect to monopolistic structures and market control. While the legislation unambiguously has barred intentional forms of monopolizing conduct such as price fixing and market allocation, its treatment of de facto monopolies or monopolistic structures has been less resolute. Specifically, claims against de facto mo- nopolies traditionally have been subject to the so-called thrust- upon defense. The defense applies when it can be shown that the monopolistic market position enjoyed by the particular firm was thrust upon it involuntarily by special economic circumstances such as a limited market, natural advantage, or superior skill and foresight. ' This Comment examines the peculiar impact of the thrust- upon defense on antitrust prosecution in Alaska. Because of geo- graphic isolation and limited markets in Alaska, the defense presents potential barriers to the prosecution of monopolistic be- havior2 under section 45.52.020. of the Alaska Statutes.3 The Sherman Antitrust Act does not condemn all monopo- lies. The decisional law has sanctioned monopolistic status under I. See, e.g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945). 2. Pure monopoly is rare; there are few industries with only one seller. The more common pattern is an industry dominated by a small group of sellers. This seller configur- ation is called oligopoly. Antitrust is also concerned with the condition which exists when there are numerous sellers but only one buyer. This is called a buyer's monopoly or monopsony. An example of monopsony would be an industry made up of a single fish processor buying from many fishermen. If there were several buyer-processors, the correct label is oligopsony. Monopsony is more common in Alaska than monopoly. In this Comment, both mo- nopoly and monopsony will be referred to generally as monopoly. Because antitrust literature usually discusses monopoly/oligopoly, however, this Comment uses those terms. Whether the focus in on sellers or buyers, the basic economic and legal issues are essen- tially the same. 3. Enacted in 1975, AS § 45.52.020 provides: It is unlawful for a person to monopo- lize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with another person to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most