In the United States v. Patten case of 1912, the Supreme Court ruled that a conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce was illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The defendants, James A. Patten and others, were charged with conspiring to manipulate and control the market for cotton by buying up large quantities in New York and Liverpool with intent to resell at higher prices. They argued that their actions did not constitute a monopoly because they didn't restrict trade or prevent others from buying cotton; they simply bought it themselves on an open market. However, the court disagreed stating that their actions effectively controlled access to this commodity which could potentially restrain trade as per Section 1 of Sherman Act - even if no actual restraint had yet occurred due to their activities.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Patten, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the defendants' actions did not constitute a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because their conduct was not inherently harmful to competition or commerce. He contended that buying and selling futures contracts on an exchange is a common business practice and does not necessarily restrict trade or create monopolies. Furthermore, he asserted that it's impossible to control prices in such markets due to their inherent unpredictability and volatility. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes, unless there is clear evidence of intent to manipulate market prices or create artificial scarcity - which was lacking in this case - no crime has been committed under the Sherman Act.