from ever offering lower prices or discounts; instead, they prohibit distributors from discriminating among purchasers in doing so. FTC v. Borden Co., 383 U.S. 637, 646, 86 S.Ct. 1092, 16 L.Ed.2d 153 (1966) (price differential not necessarily discriminatory within meaning of Robinson-Patman Act); Whitaker Cable Corp. v. FTC, 239 F.2d 253, 256 (7th Cir.1956) (price differentials not outlawed per se); FLM Collision Parts, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F.2d 1019, 1025-26 (2d Cir.1976) (“[T]he [Robinson-Patman] Act, as its language indicates, requires equality of treatment among purchasers, but it does not require a seller to adopt a single uniform price under all circumstances.”); Conley Pub. Group Ltd. v. Journal Communications, Inc., 2003 WI 119, ¶ 17, 265 Wis.2d 128, 665 N.W.2d 879 (<HOLDING>). However, even a pricing structure that is
holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation recognizing infrequency of state law antitrust actions under chapter 133 wisconsin courts follow federal interpretation of corresponding federal antitrust laws holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that the fcc was not given the power to decide antitrust issues and that its actions do not prevent enforcement of the antitrust laws in federal courts