Antitrast law

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law>"trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing

Antitrast law

Информация

Юриспруденция, право, государство

Другие материалы по предмету

Юриспруденция, право, государство

Сдать работу со 100% гаранией

Introduction

 

%20that%20prohibits%20anti-competitive%20behavior%20(monopoly%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly>)%20and%20unfair.%20Antitrust%20laws%20are%20intended%20to%20encourage%20competition%20in%20the%20marketplace.%20These%20competition%20laws%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law>%20make%20illegal%20certain%20practices%20deemed%20to%20hurt%20businesses%20or%20consumers%20or%20both,%20or%20generally%20to%20violate%20standards%20of%20ethical%20behavior.%20Government%20agencies%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency>%20known%20as%20competition%20regulators%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_regulator>,%20along%20with%20private%20litigants,%20apply%20the%20antitrust%20and%20consumer%20protection%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection>%20laws%20in%20hopes%20of%20preventing%20market%20failure%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure>.%20The%20term%20antitrust%20was%20originally%20formulated%20to%20combat%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting>%20"corporate%20trusts%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(19th_century)>,"%20which%20were%20big%20businesses.%202%20%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law>%20Other%20countries%20use%20the%20term%20"competition%20law".%20Many%20countries%20including%20most%20of%20the%20Western%20have%20antitrust%20laws%20of%20some%20form;%20for%20example%20the%20European%20Union%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union>%20has%20provisions%20under%20the%20Treaty%20to%20maintain%20fair%20competition%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_competition_law>,%20as%20does%20Australia%20under%20its%20Trade%20Practices%20Act%20<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act>%201974.">The United States antitrust law is a body of laws <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law> that prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopoly <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly>) and unfair. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law> make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both, or generally to violate standards of ethical behavior. Government agencies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency> known as competition regulators <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_regulator>, along with private litigants, apply the antitrust and consumer protection <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection> laws in hopes of preventing market failure <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure>. The term antitrust was originally formulated to combat <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust-busting> "corporate trusts <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(19th_century)>," which were big businesses. 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law> Other countries use the term "competition law". Many countries including most of the Western have antitrust laws of some form; for example the European Union <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union> has provisions under the Treaty to maintain fair competition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_competition_law>, as does Australia under its Trade Practices Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Practices_Act> 1974.

History of antitrust law

 

%20One%20view%20of%20the%20statutory%20purpose,%20urged%20for%20example%20by%20Justice%20Douglas,%20was%20that%20the%20goal%20was%20not%20only%20to%20protect%20consumers,%20but%20at%20least%20as%20importantly%20to%20prohibit%20the%20use%20of%20power%20to%20control%20the%20marketplace.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law>">The antitrust laws comprise what the Supreme Court calls a "charter of freedom", designed to protect the core republican values regarding free enterprise in America. 18 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law> One view of the statutory purpose, urged for example by Justice Douglas, was that the goal was not only to protect consumers, but at least as importantly to prohibit the use of power to control the marketplace.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law>"trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. The Interstate Commerce Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act> of 1887 began a shift towards federal rather than state regulation of big business.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law> It was followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act> of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act> and the Federal Trade Commission Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act> of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Patman_Act> of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celler-Kefauver_Act> of 1950., at this time hundreds of small short-line railroads were being bought up and consolidated into giant systems. (Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.) Advocates of strong antitrust laws argued the American economy to be successful requires free competition and the opportunity for individual Americans to build their own businesses. As Senator John Sherman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sherman_(politician)> put it, "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act> almost unanimously in 1890, and it remains the core of antitrust policy. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade or to form a monopoly. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies. officials during the Progressive Era <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era> put passing and enforcing strong antitrust high on their agenda. President Theodore Roosevelt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt>sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act, while William Howard Taft <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft> sued 75. In 1902, Roosevelt stopped the formation of theNorthern Securities Company <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Securities_Company>, which threatened to monopolize transportation in the Northwest (see Northern Securities Co. v. United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Securities_Co._v._United_States>).of the more well known trusts was the Standard Oil Company <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil>; John D. Rockefeller <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller> in the 1870s and 1880s had used economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads to build what was called a monopoly in the oil business, though some minor competitors remained in business. In 1911 the Supreme Court agreed that in recent years (1900-1904) Standard had violated the Sherman Act (see Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States>). It broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and now ExxonMobil <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil>), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoco>), Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil>, again, later merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil), of California (Chevron <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation>), and so on. In approving the breakup the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil; and the courts (not the executive branch) are to make that decision. To be harmful, a trust had to somehow damage the economic environment of its competitors.States Steel Corporation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Steel>, which was much larger than Standard Oil, won its antitrust suit in 1920 despite never having delivered the benefits to consumers that Standard Oil did. In fact it lobbied for tariff protection that reduced competition, and so contending that it was one of the "good trusts" that benefited the economy is somewhat doubtful. Likewise International Harvester <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Harvester> survived its court test, while other trusts were broken up in tobacco <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco>, meatpacking, and bathtub fixtures. Over the years hundreds of executives of competing companies who met together illegally to fix prices went to federal prison.problem some perceived with the Sherman Act was that it was not entirely clear what practices were prohibited, leading to businessmen not knowing what they were permitted to do, and government antitrust authorities not sure what business practices they could challenge. In the words of one critic, Isabel Paterson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson>, "As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid." In 1914 Congress passed the Clayton Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act>, which prohibited specific business actions (such as price discrimination <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination> a

Похожие работы

1 2 3 4 5 > >>