v. AT&T Co., which was settled in 1982 and resulted in the breakup of the company. Wilk v. American Medical Association (1990) Judge Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession." United States v. Microsoft Corp. was settled in 2001 without the breakup of the company. Legal application Constitutional basis for legislation Congress claimed power to pass the Sherman Act through its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, federal courts only have jurisdiction to apply the Act to conduct that restrains or substantially affects either interstate commerce or trade within the District of Columbia. This requires that the plaintiff must show that the conduct occurred during the flow of interstate commerce or had an appreciable effect on some activity that occurs during interstate commerce. Elements A Section 1 violation has three elements: (1) an agreement; (2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and (3) which affects interstate commerce. A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. Section 2 also bans attempted monopolization, which has the following elements: (1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly (2) specific intent to monopolize; and (3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization). Violations "per se" and violations of the "rule of reason" Violations of the Sherman Act fall (loosely) into two categories: Violations "per se": these are violations that meet the strict characterization of Section 1 ("agreements, conspiracies or trusts in restraint of trade"). A per se violation requires no further inquiry into the practice's actual effect on the market or the intentions of those individuals who engaged in the practice. Conduct characterized as per se unlawful is that which has been found to have a "'pernicious effect on competition' or 'lack[s] . . . any redeeming virtue'" Such conduct "would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output." When a per se rule is applied, a civil violation of the antitrust laws is found merely by proving that the conduct occurred and that it fell within a per se category.