The anti-monopoly statute, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, prohibits "exclusionary" or "predatory" conduct by firms with "monopoly power." It does not provide for the regulation of monopolies in general. Nor does it condemn aggressive competition on the merits even when it leads to monopoly. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a monopoly achieved through skill, foresight, or even luck does not violate the Sherman Act. See, for example, United States vs. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1966). Moreover, if a monopolist or near monopolist further improves its position by increasing its efficiency, improving the quality or desirability of its products, or reducing its prices (at least so long as they are not below marginal costs), it does not violate the law.