Wrongful acts, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. Felonies are not the same in antitrust or in competition law - at least they should not be, considering the different wording in the American and European law. But the law in the books isn't everything and, in the end, the enforcement differences are quite less than they appeared to be. Starting from that, we go back to the controversial distinction between the realm of unfair competition and the realm of competition protection/antitrust, in order to suggest that there might be a logical transition between the two: antitrust/competition law is prone to deal with concerted actions (market laws apply), but no so much so with single-firm conduct (laws apply), and the opposite is true with unfair competition. That could explain why antitrust/competition law has such difficulties in coming to terms with single-firm conduct, why the frontiers between unfair competition and protection of competition are so differently understood (some say they are the same, some say they are the opposite), and why the single-firm conduct is so badly managed (or not at all) in antitrust/competition law. We also tread several paths to try to understand the similarities between the American model (antitrust) and the European one (competition law) notwithstanding the differences - and vice-versa (modernization/difusion; path dependence; adaptation to interests; globalization). So, believers beware: in the end, the "modernization" of the European Competition Law may be promoted as an instance of market values outdating fairness values, truly being only a better excuse to give the strongest the upper hand.