...their competitors. We said, however, in Noerr that there may be instances where the alleged conspiracy "is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing...application of the Sherman Act would be justified." 365 US, at 144. In that connection the complaint in the present case alleged that the aim and purpose...

...exception," which applies to conduct ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, but which is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more...interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.164 In Noerrl6s a group of railroads allegedly conspired to monopolize trade in the freight...

...may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing government action, is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing...application of the Sherman Act would be justified. Viewing the campaign as a "no-holds-barred fight" such as is commonplace in the halls of legislative...

...Approach", 86 Yale LJ 215, at 240, 1976. The doctrine does not immunize any lobbying effort that is "[a] sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an...with the business relationships of a competitor". California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unltd., 404 US 508, 511, 92 S. Ct. 609, 612, 30 L. Ed. 2d...

...their competitors. We said, however, in Noerr that there may be instances where the alleged conspiracy "is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing...application of the Sherman Act would be justified." 365 US, at 144. In that connection the complaints in the present case alleged that the aim and purpose...

...Yale LJ 213. 240 (1976). In any event, the doctrine does not Immunize any lobbying effort that Is "[a] sham to cover what Is actually nothing more than an...with the business relationships of a competitor." California Motor Trantport Co. v. Trucking Unltd.. 404 US 506. 511. 92 S.Ct 609. 612, 30 LEd.2d 642...

...interfere with the right to petition guaranteed by the first amendment.76 The Court stated, however, that "a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more...directly with the business relationships of a competitor" would justify the application of the Sherman Act.77 The Supreme Court later extended the protection...

...association and of petition."56 There is an exception to the Noerr-Pennington exemption for activity that "is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing...interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor."57 Although the Court held the sham exception to apply to "a pattern of baseless repetitive...

...case, and in light of the instructions submitted by the parties. In Noerr. the Court stated that when a "campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing...directly with the business relationships of a competitor * * * the application of the Sherman Act would be justified." Noerr. 365 US at 144, 81 S.Ct at 533."...

...political sphere, the Court in Noerr acknowledged that certain actions, ostensibly political, might be "a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more...directly with the business relationships of a competitor. " '' ' Such sham petitioning, the Court said, would be subject to the antitrust laws. The Supreme Court...