Notre Dame Law Review
The attempt clause 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act deals with unilateral behavior which produces or is likely to produce significant anticompetitive consequences. Justice Holmes, in his classic statement of the attempt offense in Swift & Co. v. United States, 2 identified the elements of the offense as the defendant's intent to monopolize and the dangerous probability that the defendant would succeed. In the classic model of the offense, the defendant's intent resolves the ambiguity of the defendant's present behavior by showing that it is instrumental to the forbidden goal of monopolization.
Daniel J. Gifford, The Role of the Ninth Circuit in the Development of the Law of Attempt to Monopolize, 61 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1021 (1986), available at http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/331.