In the United States v. International Business Machines Corporation case of 1995, the U.S government accused IBM of monopolistic practices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit was initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1969 and focused on IBM's dominance in mainframe computer systems, which were widely used by businesses at that time for large-scale data processing tasks. The DOJ argued that IBM had unlawfully maintained its monopoly power through a series of anticompetitive actions including predatory pricing and tying arrangements - selling one product only on condition that buyers also purchase another separate product. However, after a protracted legal battle lasting over twelve years with no end in sight, the DOJ decided to drop this landmark antitrust suit against IBM in January 1982 citing changes in market conditions as their primary reason for doing so.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. International Business Machines Corporation case argued that IBM's actions did not constitute a violation of antitrust laws. The dissenters believed that IBM had acted within its rights to protect its business interests and maintain competitiveness in the market, rather than engaging in anti-competitive practices as alleged by the government. They contended that IBM's pricing strategies were legitimate competitive tactics aimed at responding to competition from other companies, not attempts to monopolize or restrain trade unlawfully. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant legal standards and precedents related to monopoly power and predatory conduct under antitrust law. In their view, these interpretations failed to consider adequately whether IBM’s behavior was harmful enough for consumers or competition overall warranting an intervention by courts.