In the case of United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey et al., 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether the defendant company had violated antitrust laws by leasing rather than selling its machinery and tying leases to exclusive use agreements. The government argued that these practices constituted an illegal restraint on trade and monopolization under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act respectively. However, after a thorough review, the court ruled in favor of United Shoe Machinery Company stating that their business model was not inherently anti-competitive or unlawful as it did not restrict competition nor create a monopoly within shoe manufacturing industry but instead promoted efficiency and quality control for customers who leased their machines.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to break up the company was based on a misunderstanding of its business model and an overreach in interpreting antitrust laws. He contended that while United Shoe did have a monopoly on shoe machinery, it had not achieved this through predatory practices or by stifling competition but rather through superior efficiency and innovation. Furthermore, he pointed out that customers were not forced into leasing agreements; they chose them because they offered better value than purchasing machines outright. Therefore, according to Holmes, breaking up United Shoe would harm consumers more than it would help competitors. He also criticized the majority's broad interpretation of restraint of trade as any practice limiting competition in some way - under such definition virtually every business could be considered illegal.