Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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) Standard Oil was dismantled into geographical entities given its size, and that it was too much of a monopoly
Natural monopoly: This type of monopoly occurs when a firm can efficiently supply the entire market due to economies of scale, where larger production leads to lower costs. 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.
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.
Signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on September 26, 1914 The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 is a United States federal law which established the Federal Trade Commission . The Act was signed into law by US President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices that affect commerce.
No system of laws can be devised by Congress alone which would effectually protect the people of the United States against the evils and oppression of trusts and monopolies. Congress has no authority to deal, generally, with the subject within the States, and the States have no authority to legislate in respect of commerce between the several ...
"Monopolies don't work and government-funded monopolies are even worse," says Jennifer Erickson, a former Obama White House staffer who now works as a senior fellow at the Federation of American ...
"The court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, Washington, D.C., wrote.
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)