Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp…

To the contrary, that opinion repeatedly emphasized the anticompetitive effects of the particular types of leases held illegal, and carefully explained that the purpose of requiring that customers in the future be given an option to purchase was to create an eventual second-hand market in United's machines and to make the machines available to United's competitors, so that they might study and copy them.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature