Crimpers Promotions Inc. v. Home Box Office, Inc. And Showtime Entertainment Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that lost future profits are not too speculative for antitrust damage calculations
• highlighting that a claim that two defendants “together attempted to or did monopolize” a market “would be one of oligopoly under-§ 1 rather than of monopoly under § 2”
• asking whether 'the plaintiffs injury was “a means to defendants’ objective”
• asking whether the 25 plaintiff’s injury was “a means to defendants’ objective”
• “[A] plaintiff need not be a direct competitor in the market in which defendants operate.”
• limitation designed to prevent double recovery inapplicable where plaintiff’s injury was “distinct and different”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).