31 terference with the normal operation of complainant's legitimate business precisely at the point where the profit is to be reaped, in order to divert a material portion of the profit from those who have earned it to those who have not; with special advantage to defendant in the compe¬ tition because of the fact that it is not burdened with any part of the ex¬ pense of gathering the news. The transaction speaks for itself, and a court of equity ought not to . hesitate long in characterizing it as unfair competition in business. " A - reversal of this approach occurred in two cases decided in 1964: Sears, Roebuck & Co v. 3tiffel Co 376 U.S. 225 and Compco Corporation v. Day-Brite Lighting Inc 376 U.S. 234. In Sears the ques¬ tion was whether a State's unfair competition law can......