as conspiracies and combinations to monopolize.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 454, 113 S.Ct. 884, 122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993). Although some commentators have suggested that a shared monopoly among several firms could be attacked under § 2 even though no individual firm possessed the power to set prices or exclude competition, see, e.g., Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 810 (1996), cited in Flash Elecs., 312 F.Supp.2d at 397, Lime Wire does not cite a single case upholding a § 2 claim on the basis of a shared monopoly. The Second Circuit has specifically rejected the shared monopoly theory in the context of a § 2 claim alleging attempted monopolization. See H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y. v. Siemens Med. Systems, Inc., 879 F.2d 1005, 1018 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “districts courts in this and other
holding that market shares of defendants could not be aggregated to establish an attempt to monopolize holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market holding void shares issued in excess of the amount of common shares authorized in the articles of incorporation recognizing implied duty to market holding that an allegation of a 65 market share could be the basis for inferring market power and thus defeated a 12b6 motion to dismiss