The authors trace the dubious origins of the Sherman Antitrust Act through
the legislative debate reported in the Congressional Record and contemporar
y commentary in the newspaper particularly the New York Times. This examina
tion shows that the evolution of effective marker governance mechanisms is
sometimes unpredictable, unintended, and fortuitous. Just as weak law and m
arker governance mechanisms can result from the best of legislative intenti
ons, so superior law and marker governance mechanisms can result from the w
orst of legislative intentions. The authors discuss implications for market
ers and marketing scholars, particularly how powerful and useful generally
worded law can become in the hands of judges who are invited by the initial
legislators to interpret the specific reach of the law.