In the 1941 case of Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of United Shoe Machinery Corporation (USMC). The plaintiff, Williams Manufacturing Company, had accused USMC of violating antitrust laws by leasing rather than selling its shoe machinery and requiring lessees to use it only on shoes they manufactured themselves. They also alleged that USMC was monopolizing trade and commerce among several states through these practices. However, the court found no evidence supporting these allegations or showing any adverse impact on competition due to USMC's business model. It held that a company has every right to lease its products instead of selling them outright if it so chooses without necessarily infringing upon anti-trust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams Manufacturing Co. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent monopoly was misguided and detrimental to competition in the marketplace. The dissenting justices believed that United Shoe Machinery Corp.'s leasing agreements, which required lessees to use only its products, were not inherently illegal or anti-competitive as they could be justified by legitimate business reasons such as ensuring product quality and protecting intellectual property rights. They also disagreed with the majority's view that these agreements constituted an unlawful tying arrangement under antitrust laws because they did not force customers into unwanted purchases but merely offered them a choice between buying or leasing equipment from United Shoe Machinery Corp.. Furthermore, they contended that this case should have been decided based on whether there was actual harm done to competition rather than potential harm implied by certain contractual provisions.