Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Second, because the law does not seek to prohibit every kind of agreement that hinders freedom of contract, it developed a "rule of reason" where a practice might restrict trade in a way that is seen as positive or beneficial for consumers or society. Third, significant problems of proof and identification of wrongdoing arise where businesses ...
The United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have joint responsibilities for enforcement of the antitrust laws. Though the FTC has some overlapping responsibilities with the Department of Justice, and although the Robinson–Patman Act is an amendment to the Clayton Act, the Robinson–Patman Act is not widely ...
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 [1] (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies.
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (Pub. L. 63–212, 38 Stat. 730, enacted October 15, 1914, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52–53), is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency.
It is also known as antitrust law (or just antitrust [4]), anti-monopoly law, [1] and trade practices law; the act of pushing for antitrust measures or attacking monopolistic companies (known as trusts) is commonly known as trust busting. [5] The history of competition law reaches back to the Roman Empire.
Notable legislation in the title includes the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. 15 U.S.C. ch. 1—Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade; 15 U.S. Code § 13a is the Robinson Patman Act
The Supreme Court orders a regional railway monopoly, formed through a merger of 3 corporations, to be dissolved. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) The antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce; Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)
For example, in some cases, utilities (such as those providing electricity or water) may operate as natural monopolies due to high infrastructure and distribution costs. Technology monopoly: This type of monopoly occurs when one company has exclusive control over a particular technology or innovation, thus enabling them to dominate the market.