Helpful Hints
- (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
- (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
- (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.
The Supreme Court has never expressly approved an efficiencies defense to a § 7 claim. See H.J. Heinz, 246 F.3d at 720. Indeed, Brown Shoe cast doubt on the defense: Of course, some of the results of large integrated or 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 business. Congress appreciated that occasional higher costs and prices might result from the maintenance of fragmented industries and markets. It resolved these competing considerations in favor of decentralization. We must give effect to that decision. 370 U.S. at 344. Similarly, in FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., the Court stated that '[p]ossible economies cannot be used as a defense to illegality. Congress was aware that some mergers which lessen competition may also result in economies but it struck the balance in favor of protecting competition.' 386 U.S. 568, 580, 87 S. Ct. 1224, 18 L. Ed. 2d 303 (1967).
