Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law.While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonably restrain trade.
One of the key criticisms focuses on Bork's use of the term "consumer welfare", which became the stated goal of American antitrust law. Bork argues that Congress enacted the Sherman Act as a "consumer welfare prescription". [4] The Supreme Court embraced this view in Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) and in all subsequent decisions.
Gibson's paradox is the observation that the rate of interest and the general level of prices under the gold standard [1] are positively correlated. [2] It is named for British economist Alfred Herbert Gibson who noted the correlation in a 1923 article for Banker's Magazine.
The rule of law is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as one of the common values for all Member States. Under the rule of law, all public powers always act within the constraints set out by law, in accordance with the values of democracy and fundamental rights, and under the control of independent and impartial courts.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), [1] is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law.Judge Learned Hand's opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Nondictatorship D: No voter in the society is a dictator. That is, there is no voter i in the society such that for every set of orderings in the domain of the constitution and every pair of distinct social states x and y, if voter i strictly prefers x over y, x is socially selected over y. [4]
In Noerr, the Court held that "no violation of the [Sherman] Act can be predicated upon mere attempts to influence the passage or enforcement of laws". Similarly, the Court wrote in Pennington that "[j]oint efforts to influence public officials do not violate the antitrust laws even though intended to eliminate competition."
Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance". [1]