![](https://www.econlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/31cuNSKayL._SX331_BO1204203200_-200x300.jpg)
Once I first began studying again problems with Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Publication in late 1968, I discovered her e-book evaluations significantly helpful. I realized about lots of books she beneficial, bought virtually all of them out of the College of Winnipeg library, and browse, cowl to cowl, all those I took out. It was an amazing studying expertise for me, at age 18, who had previously learn solely in spurts with massive gaps in between, and primarily fiction.
One e-book that made a selected impression on me, on condition that I knew just about nothing about antitrust legislation, was The Language of Dissent by Lowell Mason. Mason had been a member of the Federal Commerce Fee from 1945 to 1956. He was well-known for his dissents from the bulk selections of the FTC. He compiled plenty of them, together with explanations and context, for his e-book.
I learn by it whereas researching my forthcoming article on antitrust for Defining Concepts. Though I didn’t discover something that was on level with what I wished to jot down about, the e-book nonetheless holds up.
I did learn one passage that was too lengthy to cite in my article however that was telling. The case was Moog Industries, Inc. and Mason’s dissent was recorded on April 29, 1955. Moog was accused, underneath the Clayton Act, of providing totally different reductions to totally different consumers. This was not unlawful per se. To be unlawful, it needed to reduce competitors, are inclined to create a monopoly, or injure, destroy, or forestall competitors. Mason dissented as a result of the prosecution had not introduced any proof of damage to competitors however as a substitute had relied on the very fact of disparate reductions to conclude that competitors
injured. Moog’s legal professionals had determined to contact prospects all around the nation to get their views about whether or not they had been injured. As Mason put it:
Within the ensuing safari, each witness known as positively denied he suffered any aggressive damage from the challenged reductions or rebates–a place all of them stoutly maintained regardless of the badgering the prosecutor gave them for ruining the Authorities’s case.
Mason offers a digest of the testimony within the appendix. It’s value quoting extensively.
The primary few excerpts present the prosecutor asking prospects whether or not they have been injured, with the purchasers saying they weren’t.
The prosecutor then shifts and begins badgering one witness:
Q: Have you learnt whether or not you suffered or not?
A: No, I didn’t endure.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: Only a minute. We aren’t so concerned about getting your reply you make as we’re to search out out whether or not or not you might have the data, sure or no, whether or not , and at the moment I wish to make my objection.
THE WITNESS: You wish to know what, now? What’s your query?
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I feel Mr. Butterfield has a query pending.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Mr Witness, the query is directed to your data as as to whether or not , not whether or not or not you probably did or didn’t, however whether or not or not whether or not you probably did or not. That requires a sure or no reply.
THE WITNESS: Whether or not I do know I used to be injured, that’s the query he requested me, was I injured.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Have you learnt whether or not or not you have been injured? You recognize otherwise you don’t know. He’ll ask you an additional query on that.
THE WITNESS: My reply nonetheless was no.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I feel the witness misunderstands the query.
THE WITNESS: You requested me if I used to be injured.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: I ask if whether or not or not you have been injured.
THE WITNESS: Do I do know whether or not or not I used to be injured?
Q: Sure.
A: The reply is I don’t assume I used to be injured. I don’t see how I may very well be injured. I’d say, whether or not I do know whether or not I used to be injured or not?
Q: Sure, have you learnt?
A: I don’t know so far as both manner. I’m not injured in any manner. I imply, the query was requested, am I injured. We now have, all of the fellows are opponents.
Q: Who in your group would know higher than you whether or not you have been injured or not?
A: Whether or not I used to be injured, in what manner are you asking? Your query is whether or not or not I used to be injured?
Q: That’s proper.
A: No, I’m not injured.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I nonetheless transfer that reply be stricken and we’ve a sure or no reply to the query.
TRIAL EXAMINER: We’ll let the reply stand.
Clearly, the prosecutor thinks there’s a giant distinction between the query “Have you learnt whether or not you have been injured?” and “Have been you injured?” There’s a distinction but when the witness solutions that he wasn’t injured he’s saying that he is aware of he wasn’t injured.
![](https://www.econlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/31cuNSKayL._SX331_BO1204203200_-200x300.jpg)
Once I first began studying again problems with Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Publication in late 1968, I discovered her e-book evaluations significantly helpful. I realized about lots of books she beneficial, bought virtually all of them out of the College of Winnipeg library, and browse, cowl to cowl, all those I took out. It was an amazing studying expertise for me, at age 18, who had previously learn solely in spurts with massive gaps in between, and primarily fiction.
One e-book that made a selected impression on me, on condition that I knew just about nothing about antitrust legislation, was The Language of Dissent by Lowell Mason. Mason had been a member of the Federal Commerce Fee from 1945 to 1956. He was well-known for his dissents from the bulk selections of the FTC. He compiled plenty of them, together with explanations and context, for his e-book.
I learn by it whereas researching my forthcoming article on antitrust for Defining Concepts. Though I didn’t discover something that was on level with what I wished to jot down about, the e-book nonetheless holds up.
I did learn one passage that was too lengthy to cite in my article however that was telling. The case was Moog Industries, Inc. and Mason’s dissent was recorded on April 29, 1955. Moog was accused, underneath the Clayton Act, of providing totally different reductions to totally different consumers. This was not unlawful per se. To be unlawful, it needed to reduce competitors, are inclined to create a monopoly, or injure, destroy, or forestall competitors. Mason dissented as a result of the prosecution had not introduced any proof of damage to competitors however as a substitute had relied on the very fact of disparate reductions to conclude that competitors
injured. Moog’s legal professionals had determined to contact prospects all around the nation to get their views about whether or not they had been injured. As Mason put it:
Within the ensuing safari, each witness known as positively denied he suffered any aggressive damage from the challenged reductions or rebates–a place all of them stoutly maintained regardless of the badgering the prosecutor gave them for ruining the Authorities’s case.
Mason offers a digest of the testimony within the appendix. It’s value quoting extensively.
The primary few excerpts present the prosecutor asking prospects whether or not they have been injured, with the purchasers saying they weren’t.
The prosecutor then shifts and begins badgering one witness:
Q: Have you learnt whether or not you suffered or not?
A: No, I didn’t endure.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: Only a minute. We aren’t so concerned about getting your reply you make as we’re to search out out whether or not or not you might have the data, sure or no, whether or not , and at the moment I wish to make my objection.
THE WITNESS: You wish to know what, now? What’s your query?
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I feel Mr. Butterfield has a query pending.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Mr Witness, the query is directed to your data as as to whether or not , not whether or not or not you probably did or didn’t, however whether or not or not whether or not you probably did or not. That requires a sure or no reply.
THE WITNESS: Whether or not I do know I used to be injured, that’s the query he requested me, was I injured.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Have you learnt whether or not or not you have been injured? You recognize otherwise you don’t know. He’ll ask you an additional query on that.
THE WITNESS: My reply nonetheless was no.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I feel the witness misunderstands the query.
THE WITNESS: You requested me if I used to be injured.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: I ask if whether or not or not you have been injured.
THE WITNESS: Do I do know whether or not or not I used to be injured?
Q: Sure.
A: The reply is I don’t assume I used to be injured. I don’t see how I may very well be injured. I’d say, whether or not I do know whether or not I used to be injured or not?
Q: Sure, have you learnt?
A: I don’t know so far as both manner. I’m not injured in any manner. I imply, the query was requested, am I injured. We now have, all of the fellows are opponents.
Q: Who in your group would know higher than you whether or not you have been injured or not?
A: Whether or not I used to be injured, in what manner are you asking? Your query is whether or not or not I used to be injured?
Q: That’s proper.
A: No, I’m not injured.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION: I nonetheless transfer that reply be stricken and we’ve a sure or no reply to the query.
TRIAL EXAMINER: We’ll let the reply stand.
Clearly, the prosecutor thinks there’s a giant distinction between the query “Have you learnt whether or not you have been injured?” and “Have been you injured?” There’s a distinction but when the witness solutions that he wasn’t injured he’s saying that he is aware of he wasn’t injured.