The $68,486,679 Question: Is
[October 31, 2002]
By S. M. Oliva
Capitalism itself was on trial on Wednesday, when the
ten-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard arguments on
whether to give $68 million to a company that couldn’t beat its chief
marketplace competitor. The court’s decision in LePage’s v. 3M
could further frighten businessmen already reeling from the Microsoft
antitrust case and recent government witch hunts against alleged corporate
3M is one of capitalism’s great success stories. Founded
in 1902 as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, 3M is a leading producer of
consumer products such as Scotch brand tape. 3M’s dominance of the
transparent tape market is the subject of this lawsuit. LePage’s, a
competitor, has for years offered a cheaper brand of transparent tape,
producing store brands for retailers like Staples and Walgreen’s. 3M
responded to this competition by taking advantage of their well-known
Scotch brand. The company offered retailers rebates based on the number of
different 3M product lines they sold, all tied to Scotch tape. In other
words, 3M used their dominance in the transparent tape market to create
efficiencies across the office supply market by offering price discounts
to large retailers. 3M benefits, the retailers benefit, and consumers
The only people who didn’t benefit was LePage’s, which
lacked the resources and brand-name popularity of 3M. This left the
company with only one alternative—a lawsuit. In 1997, LePage’s filed a
federal antitrust claim against 3M, claiming they “monopolized” the tape
market, and used that monopoly to “unfairly compete” against LePage’s.
Four charges were presented to the jury, which found for LePage’s on two
of them: monopolization and attempted maintenance of an illegal monopoly.
The trial judge reversed the jury’s verdict on the attempted maintenance
charge, but awarded $68,486,679 on the monopolization claim.
Every dollar of LePage’s award is a dollar they could
not earn fairly and ethically. If not for the grace of 12 jurors and a
vague, non-objective antitrust law, that $68 million would remain in the
hands of 3M, the company that earned it.
But what’s most disturbing is the Third Circuit’s
actions. After the panel vacated the verdict and entered judgment for 3M,
the full court decided to review this matter en banc. Presumably,
the court heard the call of Circuit Judge Dolores Sloviter, the dissenting
judge on the panel, who angrily demanded a full-court review. Judge
Sloviter, it seems, was upset by the potential impact of the panel
majority’s decision on future antitrust cases. The opening paragraph of
her dissent tells you everything you need to know about the state of
businessmen in America today:
overturning the jury’s verdict for LePage’s…the majority applies reasoning
that would weaken [Section] 2 of the Sherman Act to the point of
impotence. While that may be a consummation greatly to be desired by the
behemoths of industry, such as Microsoft or 3M, it would be an
incalculable loss to business generally and to the consumer. Section 2,
the provision of the antitrust laws designed to curb the excesses of
monopolists and near-monopolists, is the equivalent in our economic sphere
of the guarantees of free and unhampered elections in the political
sphere. Just as democracy can thrive only in a free political system
unhindered by outside forces, so also can market capitalism survive only
if those with market power are kept in check. That is the goal of
the antitrust laws. The alternative, government control of markets and
regulation of prices, is unacceptable to most of us (emphasis added).
Judge Sloviter clearly doesn’t understand what
capitalism means. She’s certainly not defending capitalism by making such
anti-business statements from the bench. Her comparison of capitalism to
democracy is misplaced and dangerous. “Market power” is not the same thing
as “political power.” The latter represents the use of force, the former
the use of reason and voluntary exchange. Government has a monopoly on
political power, but no business can ever have a true monopoly on market
power. The only exception to this rule is when there is government
intervention. When judges and legislators claim for themselves the power
to dictate the structure of the marketplace, you have monopoly actors,
rather than a free market, deciding economic outcomes.
The choices are not, as Judge Sloviter puts it, between
having antitrust laws and having “government control of markets.” They’re
one in the same. Coke and Pepsi have more discernible differences. The
only distinction between antitrust laws and government control is that the
former allows private individuals to use the state’s coercive power, as
was the case here. LePage’s used antitrust laws as an alternative
The “excesses” Judge Sloviter decries are not coercive
acts on 3M’s part, but the mere fact 3M dared to earn profits at the
expense of a less-able, less-efficient competitor. Antitrust theorists are
constantly in search of the “perfect competition” model, a market where
hundreds of competitors maintain low consumer prices while no firm is ever
allowed to obtain dominance. It’s an egalitarian utopia of
government-enforced mediocrity, where reason and individual achievement
are banished. For this world to ever take hold, companies like 3M must be
destroyed, and antitrust laws are the weapons of mass destruction.
It’s ironic that this case was heard at the federal
courthouse in Philadelphia, just across the street from Independence Hall,
the birthplace of American government. The delegates to the Constitutional
convention would stage another revolution if they saw the naked assaults
on businessmen being perpetrated by the antitrust laws. They would
correctly recognize that political freedom—the basis for democracy—cannot
exist without economic freedom. And economic freedom does not come at the
barrel of an antitrust gun, but through the individual efforts of
businesses free to succeed—or fail—in the marketplace of ideas.
up for CAC's Newsletter
Keep up with the latest news—type
in your e-mail address and click Go!
You ask the
tough questions and we answer them.
The Moral Basis of Capitalism
the only moral social system. Learn why.
The Moral and the Practical
practical for the same reasons that make it moral.
Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential
texts on capitalism.
Learn about the
News mentions, press releases and speakers.
Send us a comment or
ask a question—we want to hear from you!