The author argues that the inhospitality tradition in antitrust has serious costs and causes judges to reject economically beneficial business practices. He also contends that the main alternative to the inhospitality tradition, the rule of reason enunciated by the Supreme Court, does not provide useful guidance to judges in antitrust, because it is completely open-ended and provides no assistance in determining how to weigh the relevant factors. He then proposes his own alternative approach — error-cost framework — to deciding anti-trust cases. Specifically, he suggests that judges should mimic the approach taken by economists and deploy a series of presumptions — or «filters» — to guide their inquiry. The author believes this would make it easier for businesses to plan their affairs, and also reduce litigation costs.