has not shown that it was forced to lease the Lynch figures as part of appellees’ alleged conspiracy to monopolize the wax museum display figure market. Leasing requirements, in combination with other practices, can sometimes impede competition and thereby violate the antitrust laws. For example, in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295 (D.Mass.1953), aff'd 347 U.S. 521, 74 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954) (per curiam), the defendant shoe-making equipment manufacturer used an array of practices, including a lease-only policy, both to keep its customers from looking to other suppliers and to prevent its competitors from entering into the shoe machinery field. The court condemned the defendant’s “refusal to sell” practices, finding them to be exclusionary. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe
holding that uniteds lease provisions violated  4 of the sherman act holding ncaas television restrictions violated  1 of the sherman act holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding ban violated the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act