OK
Ted, as I stated, the decision by Peoples to proceed with a card set would have been made before litigation, so I don't understand how you can say ATC thwarted Peoples from using T206 "due to the pending litigation". It wasn't pending when the cards were first printed, or at least when it was decided they would be printed. After that it didn't matter--Peoples was not going to change design mid-stream anyway.
Yes I know that American Litho continued printing cards long after divestiture. I don't see the relevance. My point was that the law that soon became the Clayton Act was being strongly considered in the 1911 era. That Act, also part of the anti-trust law in this country, did not focus just on monopolies within an industry but more directly on relationships between giants in different industries who had cozy relationships and tying agreements to do each other's bidding for their mutual interests. As you noted, Amer Litho continued to provide images to other tobacco companies after divestiture, which means they were not tied to ATC and they were acting above board. Why in 1911 would they risk an investigation into their practices by agreeing with ATC to screw a little tobacco company in LA, given the growing beatdown of anti-competitive practices in the courts? Even if cards are a pittance of the monopoly charges, why be tainted in that controversy at all--where's the upside?
|