its contracts or on the rationale of free and open competition beginning in 1996, the damage award in this case presupposes that SWBT’s anti-competitive acts will continue post-verdict and the contracts will continue to be enforced. This assumption is wrong as a matter of law. It must be remembered that the Plaintiffs prevailed upon their state-law restraint of trade claim and that such acts, and contracts which are the product of such acts, are “against public policy and illegal.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79, § 203(A); First Nat’l Pictures v. Pappe, 170 Okla. 279, 39 P.2d 526, 530 (1934) (“[I]f [a] contract was made in violation of the anti-trust laws, it was an illegal and unenforceable contract”); see also United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 290 (6th Cir.1898) (<HOLDING>). Plainly, the damage award based upon future
recognizing that in interpreting a statute our primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that contracts where the primary purpose is to restrain trade are void recognizing that the primary purpose of tr  162051 is protection of the public holding that the determination and assessment of damages are not the primary purpose of a declaratory action