First, I will provide context of my reading level. As an armchair intellectual, I enjoy reading books on economic philosophy for pleasure. I have read several books by Milton Friedman (i.e., Free to Choose, Capitalism and Freedom, Money Mischief) a few Mark Skousen Books (e.g., the Big Three in Economics, Vienna and Chicago: Friends or Foes?), a few Thomas Sowell books (e.g., On Classical Economics, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics), Henry Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson, Brian Simpson's Markets Do Not Fail!, the collection of essays on the Austrian Trade Cycle and many more. However, despite my established interests, I found this book to be informative but very boring and a chore to read.
However, my criticism of the enjoyability of the book does not extend to the value of the author's scholarship. Armentano makes a compelling case that anti-trust laws are arbitrary, are unjust, do not lead their intended results and *never* were moral or practical. The last point is especially important since many anti-trust critics still concede that it was worth busting trusts such as Standard Oil back in the day. In addition to moral and economics arguments, Armentano presents a extensive history of anti-trust cases as he analyzes over 30 cases up until the time of this books publication (late 1970s).
For the reasons stated above, I recommend this book as a reference but I do not recommend it for recreational reading for laymen. Overall, The Abolition of Antitrust, which is edited by Gary Hull, is a far superior book at articulating why anti-trust laws are both immoral and impractical.