ONE common assumption in the post-McGee [1958] predatory pricing literature has been that the predatory firm must be larger (have 'deeper pockets'), than the victim of the predation, usually an entrant. This assumption stems from a model of predation in which the contesting firms sell at levels below cost until one of the firms exits after exhausting its financial resources.1 In such a scenario, the firm with greater financial resources will usually still be in business when the other firm exits. On this basis, some economists and judges would summarily dismiss any case in which the alleged predatee is larger than the alleged predator. For example, at least two members of the Federal Trade Commission sided with the respondent in the recent FTC v. General Foods case,2 voicing the view that a smaller firm could