The United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., et al., 1943, involved the government accusing Bausch & Lomb and other defendants of violating the Sherman Act by engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolize part of commerce among several states. The alleged conspiracy was related to the manufacture and sale of optical goods such as microscopes, binoculars, etc. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that an illegal combination or conspiracy existed between Bausch & Lomb and its co-defendants which resulted in restraining interstate commerce contrary to Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, it held that one corporation could be held liable for conspiring with another corporation even if both were controlled by same individuals because corporations are separate legal entities under law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to find an antitrust violation was based on a misinterpretation of both facts and law. The dissenters believed that there were no illegal restraints or monopolies present in this case, as the companies involved had merely entered into lawful contracts with their customers. They contended that these agreements did not restrict competition but rather promoted it by allowing each company to compete more effectively within its own territory. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that such arrangements constituted price-fixing, arguing instead that prices were determined independently by each company based on market conditions and individual business strategies. In conclusion, they felt that the court should have upheld these contractual arrangements as valid exercises of business judgment protected under antitrust laws.