The United States v. Scophony Corporation of America et al., 1947, was a case that revolved around antitrust laws and the application of these laws to foreign corporations operating in the U.S. The British company, Scophony Ltd., had developed an advanced television system which it sought to introduce into the American market through its subsidiary, Scophony Corp. of America. However, due to World War II restrictions on technology transfer from Britain and financial difficulties faced by the parent company, this plan could not be realized fully. The U.S government accused both companies under Sherman Antitrust Act for conspiring with another corporation (American Television Laboratories Inc.) to monopolize trade and commerce within several states in relation to certain devices used for transmission or reception of television images. In their defense, they argued that because most activities took place outside US jurisdiction (in Britain), they were not subjectable under Sherman Act's provisions. However, Supreme Court ruled against them stating even though some actions occurred overseas; their intended effect was domestic thus making them liable under antitrust law. This landmark decision set precedent regarding extraterritoriality principle in context of anti-competitive practices - asserting that foreign conduct aimed at affecting US commerce can fall within purview of American antitrust legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Scophony Corporation of America et al., Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of antitrust laws and their application to foreign corporations operating in the U.S. He argued that these laws were not designed to regulate or control foreign trade, but rather domestic commerce within American borders. Furthermore, he contended that Scophony’s actions did not constitute a restraint on trade as they had no significant impact on competition within the U.S market due to its limited operations at that time. Therefore, according to Justice Jackson, applying antitrust laws in this case was inappropriate and exceeded their intended scope.