{
  "id": "RL33708",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33708",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 341530,
      "date": "2006-10-23",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:44:07.543029",
      "title": "The Distinction Between Monopoly and Monopolization in Antitrust Law",
      "summary": "Antitrust law does not mandate either that markets be competitive, or that they contain some predetermined number of participants/competitors; it is concerned, rather, with the operation of markets, on the assumption that a properly functioning market (i.e., one in which there is an opportunity for viable competition, and is not skewed by the predatory actions of participants), will best protect consumers. \u201cMonopoly\u201d and \u201cmonopolist\u201d are, therefore, merely descriptive terms, used to illustrate situations in which a single entity (or group of entities) possesses effective control of the market in which it operates; neither term implies anything about the lawfulness of the monopoly possessed. \u201cMonopolization,\u201d on the other hand, is the term used in antitrust law to characterize as unlawful a situation in which a monopolist\u2014irrespective of whether his monopoly has been lawfully achieved\u2014couples his monopoly status with behavior designed to unfairly exploit, maintain, or enhance his market position. Similarly, \u201cattempted monopolization\u201dconnotes a situation in which an entity unlawfully or unfairly attempts to secure a market monopoly. The long-standing, judicially created Rule of Reason, which involves balancing an anticompetitive action with any procompetitive results, underscores those facts.\nWhether a market participant who is a monopolist must deal with anyone who desires to deal with it continues to be largely governed by the so-called Colgate doctrine. In 1919, in United States v. Colgate & Co. (250 U.S. 300), the Supreme Court recognized the unfettered \u201cright\u201d of a private vendor \u201cto exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal ....\u201d Colgate notwithstanding, the existence of an \u201cessential facility\u201d (i.e., a necessary component of a potential competitor\u2019s business and which is both unavailable from any source other than the alleged monopolist and cannot be reasonably duplicated), once established, has generally been thought to impose a duty to deal with the actual or potential competitors of even a lawful monopolist. The continuing viability of the so-called \u201cessential facilities\u201d doctrine, however, was called into question by the Supreme Court\u2019s 2004 ruling in Verizon v. Trinko (540 U.S. 398).\nThe Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) each operate on the assumption that the monopoly status of competitors is antitrust-relevant only insofar as their actions may impact the operation or competitiveness of markets.\nThis report\u2014which explores the difference between monopoly and monopolization as those terms are used in antitrust law, and the differing enforcement consequences of each\u2014will be updated if case law or legislation alters the concepts it discusses. It is based on several existing documents by the same author, including CRS Report RS20241, Monopoly and Monopolization - Fundamental But Separate Concepts in U.S. Antitrust Law; CRS Report RS21723, Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Trinko: Telecommunications Consumers Cannot Use Antitrust Laws to Remedy Access Violations of Telecommunications Act; and Duty of a Monopolist to Deal, a general distribution memorandum.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33708",
          "sha1": "62c385379d98ef417291e1ed052f03d3995b4e93",
          "filename": "files/20061023_RL33708_62c385379d98ef417291e1ed052f03d3995b4e93.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33708",
          "sha1": "bd841668b7cc0d1ce1a33cf16082662fd6257ae6",
          "filename": "files/20061023_RL33708_bd841668b7cc0d1ce1a33cf16082662fd6257ae6.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}