How Do Antitrust Policies Help Or Hurt Society

How Do Antitrust Policies Help Or Hurt Society
To what extent to antitrust policies help or hurt society? Please explain and specify what clauses (at least 2 or 3 clauses) within the Sherman and
Clayton Antitrust acts have protected/hurt consumers and business from the ills of monopolies. Antitrust policies are mot harmful to society than they
are helpful. The Antitrust laws that were apparently focused on the restriction of monopolies for the safeguarding public welfare and just prices have
instead been used by the government in ways that are more harmful to consumers than beneficial. More often than not, these laws obstruct innovation
and impede competition and free trade. The main purpose of the laws is to ensure that large corporations do not take advantage of consumers, but in
the process of maintaining this order, the government may be restricting companies that have the potential of being beneficial for society with fair
prices in the long run. The Antitrust Acts can be seen as more of an effort to maintain and "keep the doors open" of businesses that otherwise would
not be able to withstand the competition of more efficient businesses. Therefore, they can be seen more of a restriction on the development of... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Regulation can be seen as an interference with innovation and creativity. Rather than ensuring that a firm does not disobey the Acts, regulation may be
responsible for the inefficiency of a firm. For example, the only individuals capable of determining the most effective and efficient methods of
managing an industry are those who are active participants in it, not individuals who are not "in the loop" of managing a successful international
business such as the lawmakers and politicians who enforce these acts. The only possible and sound way to determine the best move for a firm is
through the wisdom gained with experience and intimate knowledge on the subject. Only then would competition within the free market be
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Microsoft Antitrust Case
The Sherman Antitrust act of 1890, along with other laws passed by congress, was put in place to regulate companies from engaging in anticompetitive
practices. However, in 1998 Microsoft was the subject of an investigation initiated by the Justice department. In their charges the Department of Justice
accused Microsoft of engaging in monopolistic activity. The purpose of my report is to examine what led to the investigation. Furthermore, I will
explain the judgment in the case. Finally, I will analyze the present state of Microsoft. In order to understand this subject I will explain the current laws
against monopolies in the United States. Then I will describe the events of the investigation and judgment of Microsoft. First, we must understand...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Circuit Court of Appeals heard Microsoft's appeal in 2002. Although the verdict against Microsoft was not overturned , but the consequences suffered
by Microsoft were different. Under the new ruling third parties would have access to Microsoft's application programming interfaces. Furthermore and
a committee of three people were appointed, with the objective of ensuring compliance, by having access Microsoft's system records for a period of 5
years initially. Later the time would be extended. Finally, although the bundling of Internet Explore with the Windows interface is what initiated the
investigation, the Department of Justice did not prevent Microsoft from connecting other software with Windows again. (Civil Action No. 98–1232

The Pros And Cons Of Monopolies
Many companies and people have committed monopolies before they were illegal and even after it. A monopoly is when one person has complete
control over a company and makes close to 100% of the profits but because of the The Sherman Antitrust Act passed on April 8, 1890, "combination in
the form of trust and otherwise, conspiracy in restraint of trade." In simple terms the act prohibited any forms of monopoly in business and marketing
fields. Monopolies committed before the Act, making it legal in every way but unethical, by some of the famously known marketers like John D.
Rockefeller making him filthy rich. While others committed after The Sherman Antitrust Act caused a company like Microsoft to be sued and have a
bruised ego. John D. Rockefeller became one of the richest men in America in his time due to his top position in Standard Oil and the monopoly he
created. Rockefeller was born in Richford, New York and moved to Ohio at 14 years old. Unafraid of work the, the young 20 year old thrived at
his job and by the end of the year made $450,000. In the early 1860s, Rockefeller sensed an opportunity in the oil business. Cornelius Vanderbilt
called Rockefeller up, thinking he could take advantage of the newly built business man. Though Vanderbilt was tough, Rockefeller was ruthless.
Rockefeller was supposed to be on a train to meet Vanderbilt one morning, but was running late and missed it which spared his life because the
train fell off its tracks. Rockefeller was a new man and felt as though God was on his side. Rockefeller realized the success in the oil business and
how much people like Vanderbilt needed his oil and took it to his advantage. Everything Rockefeller had done when it came to his position in the oil
business led to America's first monopoly or "trust" that served as a guideline for other businesses behind him. Standard Oil's moves were quick to
sweep control of almost all of the refineries in Cleveland in just two years. With Standard Oil's size and control in the region it made favorable deals
with railroads to ship its oils. At the same time, Standard got into another business with a purchase of terminals and pipelines which set up a system to
transport its own product. The business got

Essay about Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Constitutional Law)
To: Reader
From:
Re: Sherman Antitrust Act
Facts
John Davison Rockefeller was the founder of Standard Oil Company in 1870 and ran it until he retired in 1897. Standard Oil gained almost complete
control over the oil refining market in the United States by underselling its competitors. Rockefeller and his associates owned dozens of corporations
operating in just one state.
The Sherman Antitrust Actwas enacted on July 2nd, 1890 which prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the
marketplace.
Issue Cal Hockley owns numerous steel mills in 1912. Cal believed that if he was taken to court for breaking the Sherman Antitrust Act that his lawyers
would simply argue that Cal is not in violation ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Furthermore, the " subjectmatters of the combination and the combination itself are not excluded from the scope of the act as being matters of
intrastate commerce and subject to state control."
In Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1911) Standard oil and 37 other corporations were alleged to have engaged in conspiring to
restrain the trade in petroleum and monopolize the petroleum industry. The Supreme Court ruled that combining the defendants oil companies' stock to
be a restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize the oil industry and maintain dominance and therefore a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that "The term "monopoly,"... as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such
monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when
applied to intrastate commerce." The Supreme Court went on to further state that "the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to
intrastate commerce."
Analysis In the issue of Cal Hockley's steel mills, it is clear that the courts would find Cal Hockley in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, even
though the conduct

The Components Of The Sherman Antitrust Act-1890
Peyton Fox 12/3/17 Block B7 Unit 4 legislation Project Sherman Antitrust Act– 1890 The Sherman Antitrust Act is the oldest of America's Antitrust
laws. It was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890. The purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act was to preserve free
competition in business and made it a crime to take over any part of trade or commerce. It was intended to regulate interstate commerce, and to
regain a balance in industry allowing equal opportunities to all businesses. The Sherman Antitrust Act had its supporters and detractors. Supporters
of the Sherman Antitrust Act were the farmers because they had no competition with the big businesses. They also stated that prohibiting
unreasonable restraints on trade would allow them to expand their business. Those opposed of the Sherman Antitrust Act believed that big
companies should be able to decide what happens in business markets. Business owners also opposed this due to protect the process of
competition. Applying strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keeping prices down and quality up. Homestead Act 1862 The
Homestead Act was passed on May 20, 1862. It stated anyone over the age of 21 who was the head of a family could obtain up to 160 acres of public
land if they lived on it for five years and make improvements. It was intended to move more settlers west, to give more free states voice in congress.
People decided that it would be profitable to turn

Government Contribution To The Industrial Revolution...
Rapid growth of business, industrialization and monopolies, contributed to the Industrial Revolution in the United States during the Progressive Era.
Following a policy of laissez– faire failed to control big businesses. Although some critics may believe that the government negatively impacted
businesses during the Industrial Revolution, the regulations put onto businesses positively contributed to economic growth and protected the American
Citizens from the big businesses.Prior to the industrial revolution in America, businesses were small and family owned and did not cause many
problems. At the time the largest enterprises only employed around 50 people ("Corporations"). With only small businesses up to the 1870's the
government was able to follow laissez– faire policies. However, the industrial revolution grew in Europe and quickly made its way to America.
Businesses rapidly began to grow and monopolies formed. The need for railroads and transportation supported the growth of industries
("Corporations"). The railroads made it easy to transport manufactured goods across the nation ("Industrial"). Robber barons, John Rockefeller, Andrew
Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan, took advantage of the need for new industries and quickly began to ruin the country; their monopolies controlled everything.
The formation of monopolies and trusts eliminated competition and drove prices of basic items up (Benson). Consumers began to have only one
expensive option for things they

Disadvantages Of Antitrust Law
Chief Justice Roberts stated courts in the U.S. have historically granted injunctions upon a finding of infringement since the 19th century. The Antitrust
Division in the U.S. also admits a patent owner's "rights to exclude are similar to the rights enjoyed by owners of other forms of private property" in
the Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. Therefore, as a fundamental principle, "antitrust law does not generally prohibit the
holder of any other property right from seeking an injunction to vindicate that right." The FTC has the right to regulate "unfair methods of
competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. During the past two decades, the FTC
has been heavily involved in several high–profile SEP disputes, including Dell Computer Corp., N–Data, Rambus Inc. v. FTC, Motorola Mobility, and
Bosch GmbH. The FTC generally invokes competition law as a basis for investigation over these cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section
7 of the Clayton Act. The particular concern ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
These consent agreements mostly impose strict requirements for an SEP holder to seek injunctive relief. For example, in Bosch GmbH, the FTC
dictated that Bosch GmbH can only seek injunctions against an unwilling licensee. The unwilling licensee shows unwillingness by refusing to accept
the SEP holder's offer of a license on F/RAND terms, or a court's determination. In Motorola Mobility, the order prohibits Google/Motorola from
making any future claims for injunctions over a F/RAND Patent against a potential licensee. This unwilling licensee similarly should refuse (1) a F
/RAND offer either in writing or in sworn testimony, (2) a court order, (3) a binding arbitration–determined F/RAND terms, or (4) simply not replying
to the written confirmation requested in a F/RAND Terms from an SEP

Essay On Progressive Movement
Michael Dudash
Professor Kersey
U.S. History (Post 1877)
28 September 2016
The Progressive Movement
The progressive movement, the era of change in a "New America", occurred in the late 19th century into the early 20th century. Debated as the most
influential time in history, this period birthed three amendments (17th, 18th, and 19th) along with much social and political change. Sandwiched
between "societal depression", this was a breath–catching interlude of reform and social justice. This movement was definitely a people's movement.
But what caused it? How did it start and why?
One of the sparks in the blaze called the Progressive Movement was the shadow cast upon the working class by big business and corrupt politics (The
Gilded Age). The big business interacted with and basically controlled politics (mainly because of monetary control). John Powell said in his article,
"Unraveling the Progressive Movement", "Men such as ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The big cities often favored middle class and upper class individuals. The standard and quality of life was much higher for those with money. This may
seem obvious, but the lower class individuals were in diseased, highly populated areas in the slums of the city. These ghettos and slums of the cities
held a high number of immigrants. These immigrants were competing for low–wage jobs, swarming into heavy industrialized areas. Dr. Hansan, the
author of the article, "The Progressive Era", says, "The progressives came from a long tradition of middle–class elites possessing a strong sense of
social duty to the poor." Progressives felt an obligation to help the lower class. The biggest group that helped were middle–class women. These women
helped immigrants to speak English, helped with child care, and helped with health care (Red Cross). Along with immigrants, lower class citizens
were also helped. Labor Unions were formed to reduce hours and improve safety condition in the work

The Sherman Anti Trust Act Of 1890 Essay
Abbi Green
Period 5
2016 Nov. 16
Anti–Trust
The Sherman Anti–Trust Act of 1890 was passed to prohibit trusts, this was the first law passed by U.S. Congress to enforce this. This act was named
after Senator John Sherman. Before this act was put into place, many other states had enforced laws very similar to the Sherman Anti–Trust Act. These
laws were not perfect though, the large corporations had the majority of the economic power. Congress was not pleased with this, thus making the
Sherman Anti–Trust Act. This act allowed Congress to regulate interstate commerce, outlawing monopolistic practices. If a person were to violate this
act, he or she could be imprisoned for a year and fined five–thousand dollars. This law was successfully used to help Theodore Roosevelt during his
campaign, "trust–busting". Also, President Taft used the law to back himself up against theStandard Oil Trust and American Tobacco Company. The
Standard Oil trust was when a board of nine trustees was set up to make all of the company decisions , allowing the company to run as a monopoly.
The Sherman Anti–Trust Act allowed both presidents to dissolve the trusts that were creating problems. On the other hand, the Sherman Anti–Trust Act
had many holes, it did not have exact wording, therefore allowing companies to still control the majority of the producing and still get away with it.
The Sherman Anti–Trust Act had substantial success, but was put to rest and replaced with the Clayton Anti–Trust

The Microsoft Anti-Trust Case: Presidential Candidate...
The Microsoft Anti–Trust Case: Presidential Candidate Recommendations
The Microsoft Antitrust Case is essentially the clash of two separate ideals, the key issue being how much influence the government should have in the
marketplace. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Microsoft is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Actof 1890, which states: "Every person who
shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce
among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony." ("The Sherman Antitrust Act") The Justice Department claims that
Microsoft used its power to establish and maintain a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Microsoft's Windows operating system (OS) became a quick success since its creation, entering into the service of millions of consumers worldwide.
Ever since Windows became the dominant OS, rival companies have faced the problem of designing software compatible with Windows in order to
maintain their large customer population – failure to do so would be detrimental to their own company. Because Microsoft owns the code to its
Windows software, defenders of the company argue that it has the right to distribute (or not to distribute) its code at its own leisure. According to
Microsoft, the court order forcing them to sell their code is considered a breach of its rights to freedom and property. ("Frequently Asked Questions")
In addition, the RealNetworks case – which demanded that Microsoft unbundle its Windows Media Player from the Windows software (Krim)– can be
considered a breach of the same rights. After all, Microsoft, as a seller, can dictate the terms that it wants to sell to its consumers, leaving it up to the
consumers as to whether they want to buy the product or not. ("Frequently") Therefore, court orders that force Microsoft to either share its technology
or change the "bundle" that Windows is sold with are considered by Microsoft to be a violation of their right to freedom and property
Furthermore, Microsoft has claimed that it practices sound business techniques that have brought it to the forefront of computer software developers.

Native American Removal Act ( Indian Removal )
In the late 19th century, the American people began to go west. Americans began to pour into the West because of rapid population growth and
affordable land (Importance of the West). They were also promised wide open land and to be free of Indians (Importance of the West). The West was
in fact not free of Indians, and there were several wars that ensued in Arkansas, Montana, Washington, and California (Youngs). On May 28, 1830, the
Indian Removal Act was passed. It stated that the Native American were to be removed from the Southern states (Indian Removal Act). The act ended
the Native American's right to live in the states under their own traditional laws (Indian Removal Act). They were given the options to assimilate and
acknowledge the United States' laws or leave (Indian Removal Act). They were forced to leave their land, their homes, everything they ever knew or
face the consequences. They were forced to go to a land that they knew nothing about, and hope that they would be able to survive where ever they
ended up. When the Cherokee were forced to leave, out of the 18,000 that left 4,000 died on the way (Primary Documents) As a result of all of the
death on the trail, it was named the Trail of Tears(Primary Documents). On May 20, 1862, the Homestead Act was passed (Homestead Act). This act
stated that any adult citizen who had never borne arms against the United States government could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land
(Homestead Act). The government

United States V. E. C. Knight Company Case Study
United States v. E.C. Knight Co.
156 U.S. 1 (1895)
Facts
A case concerning monopolies and the Court's first antitrust case. In 1982, American Sugar Refining Company entered into agreements that allowed it
to take over the four Pennsylvania refineries, including E.C. Knight Company, which would give American Sugar absolute control of 98 percent of the
U.S. sugar refining business. The federal government sued to break the acquisition agreements because the agreement allows the sugar companies to
operate as a monopoly in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The United States argued that the federal government can prohibit
monopolies and set aside agreements that have created them in order to allow most Americans to enjoy

Pros And Cons Of Antitrust Legislation
Pros and Cons of Antitrust Legislation Congress passed an antitrust law in 1890 to help keep companies from using monopolizing business
practices called the Sherman Act ("FTC," n.d., para. 1). Two more antitrust laws were passed in 1914. The two laws were the Federal Trade
Commission Act and the Clayton Act ("FTC," n.d., para. 1). These laws were put in place to protect consumers and businesses alike. Each law that
has been put in place to ensure fair trade; and each one has its own pros and cons. I will be giving examples of the marginal costs and marginal
benefits of Antitrust Legislation and how regulatory capture ties into the laws as well. Antitrust legislation is an important factor to the economy. The
Sherman Act was the first part of legislation put into place by the United States to limit monopolies ("SHRM," 2008). The focus of the law is to
consider any type of conspiracy or attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce will be held accountable by law ("SHRM," 2008). The
law is an important part of the foundation of Antitrust Legislation. The Sherman Act was the only law in place for many years until the Clayton Act
was introduced. The Clayton Act was the next law put in place in conjunction with the antitrust legislation. The law was put into place in 1914 to help
strengthen laws already put in place by the Sherman Act ("Antitrustlaws.org," n.d., para.1).The Clayton Act's main purpose is to ensure there is
competition. The reason this law has been put

Intel Case Study Essays
Case Study Intel's "rebates" and Other Ways It "Helped" Customers
In your judgment is Intel a "monopoly"? Did Intel use monopoly–like power, in other words, did Intel achieve its objectives by relying on power that it
had due to its control of a large portion of the market? Explain your answers.
In my judgment Intel did react like a monopoly. Pure monopoly exists when a single firm is the sole producer of a product for which there are no
close substitutes. The characteristics of a monopoly are a single seller, unique product no substitutions, the firm is the price maker and entry and exits
are blocked. In this case study there were several evidence that Intel attempted to create a monopoly. First, Intel developed and patented a new ... Show
In your view, did Intel violate either of the two key sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act?
The Sherman Antitrust Act is a competition law passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition in the
marketplace, and requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in
violation. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United
States federal government. Section 1 states contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or foreign
nations is hereby declared illegal. Intel did not break Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the company did not prohibit competing companies from
making agreements to fix prices, to divide up territories or customers, or to restrict the quantity of goods they bring to the market. Section 2 of the
Sherman Act states every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to
monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Intel did violate
Section2 of the Sherman Act, Intel employed payments for exclusivity, rebates, and other support conditional on the recipient restricting its business
with AMD, as well as threats of

Case Study Intellectual American Needle
Introduction: On January 12, 2010 the National Football League (NFL) went before the Supreme Court seeking immunity under the antitrust laws. The
Court had a seemingly easy question presented to them. When the NFL and its thirty–two franchises get together and make business decisions like
intellectual property licensing, are they a group of competitors subject to the antitrust laws, or are they more like a board of directors incapable of
illegally conspiring with themselves. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Stevens rejected the NFL's single entity argument. The Court viewed the
thirty–two teams as separate economic entities, and is exemplified by competing interests of the teams on and off the field. In the market for intellectual
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Court is asked to review thousands of cases every year and the incorrect ruling by the 7th Circuit may have forced the Court to grant certiorari.
American Needle was an opportunity for the Court to clarify their opinion in Copperweld and decide the case based on the narrow issue before them.
The Court was likely hesitant to go beyond because of the wide implications their holding would have on professional sports associations. It was not
only the NFL that had an interest in the outcome but also a host of other sports associations. In the end the Court correctly held that based on the facts
of the case the NFL could not bring up the single–entity defense. The main concern is that American Needle is a ruling on intellectual property and
has not closed the door on sports associations colluding to create unreasonable restraints based on defense of being a

Sherman Antitrust Act : A Critical And Necessary Statute
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT
I claim that the Sherman Antitrust Act is a critical and necessary statute that gradually caused significant changes in business practices in order to
ensure a competitive free market system essential for long term growth of the economy, although it faced criticisms for sacrificing economic efficiency.
This fundamental statute continues to notably shape the economic landscape even today, albeit being more than 100 years old.
The act contains three sections. The first section renders every contract, trust and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade illegal (Dana
1903). The second section effectively penalizes everyone engaged in monopolizing any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with
a foreign nation. The third section extends the first section to include U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. Prior to the enactment of this act
several states within the United States had passed similar laws for intrastate businesses. However, the Sherman Antitrust Actof 1890 was the first
measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts and regulate interstate commerce (Initiative).
The opponents of the act claim that it made the economy less efficient. Bradley (1990) asserts that the Sherman Act discouraged scale economies that
promoted lower costs and prices, penalized successful market entrepreneurship, and rewarded the political entrepreneurship of less–efficient business
rivals. Others such as Comanor (1995)

The Sherman Antitrust Act
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to battle anticompetitive practices, reduce market domination by individual corporations, and
preserve unfettered competition as the rule of trade ("Antitrust: an overview," 2011).The antitrust investigation that I am looking at is against several
major baby formula brands. Companies that were involved in this investigation include Mead Johnson Nutrition of the United States, Dumex which is
owned by Danone, Wyeth which is owned by Nestle, Abbotts and Friesland Campine, Biostime, and Beignmate. These companies are being
investigated by the National Development and Reform Commission. They are accused of violating Article 14 of the Anti–monopoly law by limiting
the lowest prices offered to their... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are only a few firms that make up this industry and they have control over the price. These companies have high barriers to entry the market.
The products they produce are similar which cause competition. There is both good and bad when it comes to oligopoly and monopolies. Some
good things about oligopoly are by developing product innovations and taking advantage of economies of scale. With oligopoly it is more likely to
expand production capabilities, promote economic growth, and they develop change that advances the level of technology ("Oligopoly," 2000).
Some bad things about oligopoly is that they tend to be inefficient in the allocation of resources and promotes the concentration of income and
wealth ("Oligopoly," 2000). They charge much higher prices and end up producing less of an output than the efficiency benchmark of perfect
competition. One of the good forms is natural monopoly. Natural monopoly exists when economies of scale encourage production by a single
producer (Mayer). An example of this is your local electrical utility. As a power plant increases, the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity falls
(Mayer). If we were to all use small generators to run our homes the cost of each household would be ridiculous. The total fixed cost of generators for
the community would be high and the variable cost of running it would also be high. Another form of monopoly that is good is

The Federal Trade Commission Act
In 1890, the United States Congress passed the first Anti–Trust Law, called the Sherman Act, in an attempt to combat anti trusts and as a
"comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." (The Antitrust Laws). Twenty
four years later in 1914, Congress passed two more Anti–Trust Laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission
whose aim is to protect American consumers, and the Clayton act, which fills in any loopholes in the Sherman Act. Ultimately, these three Anti Trust
Acts regulate three core problems within the market: restricting the creation of cartels, restricting the "mergers and acquisitions of organizations which
could substantially lessen competition", and prohibit the creation of monopolies in the market ("The Antitrust Laws").
The history of the antitrust laws date back to the late nineteenth century, following the end of the Civil War. This time, known as the Gilded Era, began
when entrepreneurs began searching for big profits from their business ideas. Over time, the small business ideas turned into massive corporations. The
creation of new ideas and a radical shift towards industrialism led to the Industrial Revolution. Amongst the most powerful corporations during this time
were the four that still exist today: John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company, Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Steel, Cornelius Vanderbilt's New York
Central Railroad System, and J.P.

Business, Industrialization And Monopolies During The...
Rapid growth of business, industrialization, and monopolies, contributed to the Industrial Revolution in the United States during the Progressive Era.
Following a policy of laissez– faire failed to control big businesses. Although some critics may believe that the government negatively impacted
businesses during the Industrial Revolution, the regulations put onto businesses positively contributed to economic growth and protected the American
citizens from the big businesses.Prior to the industrial revolution in America, businesses were small, family owned, and generally did not cause many
problems. At the time, the largest enterprises only employed around 50 people ("Corporations"). With only small businesses up to the 1870's, the
government was able to follow laissez–faire policies. However, the Industrial Revolution grew in Europe and quickly made its way to America.
Businesses rapidly began to grow and monopolies formed. The need for railroads and transportation supported the growth of industries
("Corporations"). The railroads made it easy to transport manufactured goods across the nation ("Industrial"). Robber barons, John Rockefeller, Andrew
Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan, took advantage of the need for new industries and quickly began to ruin the country; their monopolies controlled everything.
The formation of monopolies and trusts eliminated competition and drove prices of basic items up (Benson). Consumers began to have only one
expensive option for the

Sherman Antitrust Act
In 1907 a federal court ruled that American Tobacco had a monopoly on licorice, a flavoring, and that the company was guilty of violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act. After a long trial, the court prohibited the company from enjoying interstate trade until conditions were corrected. It went through the
U.S. Supreme Court, which decided on May 29, 1911 that the company had to be dissolved. On Nov. 16, 1911 the Supreme Court issued a decree that
the company had to be divided into three major parts: American Tobacco, Liggett and Myers, and P. Lorillard. The control of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company of Winston–Salem was also relinquished. James B. Duke, a multimillionaire by then, retired from active management of the American
companies and turned

Rockefeller Essay
Arguments have raged over Standard Oil and its business practices since its prime in the 1870's and 1880's. Was it a monopoly? Did it severely
impede fair competition? If it was a monopoly, did it hurt the consumer? These are the questions that have been argued in debates about Standard Oil
and its practices. Whether Standard Oil was a monopoly or not, the more important question to economists is, were the practices of the Standard Oil
Company efficient and did it hurt the social wealth of the country? The government's enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Acton Standard Oil hurt the
country's social wealth and efficiency.
John D. Rockefeller was the founder and owner of Standard Oil. Considered by many to be the first great ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
First, they built extremely high quality, larger refineries. They also set forth in creating their own cooperage or barrel making plant. The plant
ended up cutting the cost per barrel from $3.00 to $1.25 and saving Standard Oil around $4,000,000 per year (John D. Rockefeller and the Standard
Oil Company). Twenty wagons were purchased by 1868 to more cheaply move the oil. A warehouse was built on the Hudson and East River in New
York City and Standard Oil had their own boats to transport the oil. They were also the first to transport the oil via tank cars and invested in a fleet of
them. All of these moves were vertical integration steps that reduced the production costs of Standard Oil.
Since Standard Oil was so large, it became economical to build a plant to create products from the waste of the refining of Kerosene. They produced
lubricating oil that replaced lard for machinery. They used the gasoline as fuel instead of dumping it into the Cuyahoga River like some competitors
had been doing. Consequently, the Cuyahoga had frequently caught fire. Paraffin was another byproduct that they manufactured because it was
insoluble in water could be used for making candles and waterproofing goods. The most recognizable product that was created from the waste was
Petroleum. Petroleum was a basis for ointments and lubricants. It was later marketed under the brand name of Vaseline. With Standard

Antitrust Laws Of The Sherman Act And The Ftc Act
Antitrust are a series of laws designed to protect competition in the marketplace. Antitrust laws prevent restraints of trade or commerce. Black's Law
Dictionary defines antitrust laws as "[t]he body of law designed to protect trade and commerce from restraints, monopolies, price–fixing, and price
discrimination." The main law regulating antitrust is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which makes it illegal for individuals or groups to restrain trade or
commerce. Besides the Sherman Act, the other law that factors into Dental Examiners is the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits any
"[u]nfair methods of competition." This law serves as the basis for the majority of Federal Trade Commission lawsuits such as Dental Examiners. The
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While the Court found that the standards were an antitrust activity, it was not unreasonable because it was for the purpose of protecting athletes, not
controlling the market. In summation, antitrust laws prevent only unreasonable restraints of trade, which is based upon the circumstances of the
restriction.
Goals of Antitrust Law
Antitrust laws are meant to protect competition in markets. They try to ensure that all individuals have an "equally opportunity in honest competition."
Early in the nation's history, there was widespread fear of the dangers of monopolies and other restrictions on competition. In 1890, Congress passed
the Sherman Antitrust Act to prevent limits on competition caused by private parties. Thus the main goal of antitrust law is to preserve "economic
freedom" and a "free–enterprise system." Specifically, it attempts to preserve "the freedom to compete" for businesses. In a practical sense, antitrust
laws are seeking to prevent burdens on competition in the marketplace.
Damages in Antitrust Lawsuits Antitrust plaintiffs have many different remedies available to them under Federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs can receive
damages for any loss they sustained from the antitrust activity. For example, if an antitrust activity prevented a salesperson from conducting their
normal profession then that person would likely be able to recover damages for that loss. In antitrust law, plaintiffs receive "treble damages,"

The Antitrust Laws Are Really Competition Laws That Are...
Abdurhman Alsadi Prof. Joshua Long Exam #3 04/14/2016 Question #1 The antitrust laws are basically competition laws that are aimed at protecting
the consumers from predatory businesses out who may be out to defraud consumer and to limit the practice of free and fair competition in the market.
The major objective of these laws was majorly meant to curb business practise vices such as price–fixing, bid–rigging, and market allocations. In USA,
the antitrust law is cascade into two major categories, the federal antitrust laws, and state antitrust laws. The first antitrust law in USA was the Sherman
Act of 1890. This law mainly address the "unreasonable restraints of trade" which are perceived to be monopolizing with foreign entities and restraint
of businesses from operations in the form of contracts and conspiracies in business combinations. The second major antitrust law is the Clayton Act
brought in 1914 which widened the scope of the Sherman Act for include impermissible activities such as price discrimination between different
purchasers if such discrimination tend to create a monopoly; exclusive dealing agreements, tying arrangements, and mergers and acquisitions that
substantially reduce market competition. The third major antitrust law were the Robinson–Patman Act of 1936. This came as an amendment to the
Clayton Act, which aimed at outlawing certain practices where manufacturers discriminated in price between equally situated distributors to decrease
competition. The

Patrick V. Burget: The Sherman Antitrust Act
The variances between criminal law and antitrust are criminal law constitutes an offense that is committed by a citizen, and the level of punishment
will vary based on the crime. Antitrust on the other hand is a law that controls the actions of a business entity to ensure that the consumers are receiving
fair treatment. Both of these statutes have the ability to be tried either at the state or federal level. These laws have an enormous impact on health care
in the 21st century as it demonstrates that the government not tolerate misconduct and these laws are in effect to protect the interest of the public. U.S.
health care administrators have a duty to oversee the staff and the operation of the facility and is accountable for taking appropriate actions to report
any wrongdoing. Administrators are at the forefront of the organization and must monitor the staff and the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Since we know this may not always be the case, this is how lawmakers create laws with the hope that it will discourage people from not adhering to
the rules. According to Pozgar & Santucci (2016), the case of Patrick v. Burget is a direct violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act where physicians
conspired to terminate another doctor's hospital privileges which would ultimately have an adverse reaction to his practice. The creation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act is to prevent similar incidences from occurring and deter individuals from trying to monopolizing the system for personal gain.
The new contracts are effective to some degree although laws are in place they cannot control everyone actions. These improvements have provided
some resolution regarding the integrity of health care professionals however there is always room for improvement. As the health care industry
progresses and the new laws are in place with stricter guidelines, the more health professional that are compliant will reduce the number of law

Competition Is The Cornerstone Of Capitalism
Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. It creates rivalry among businesses to produce quality goods and services at competitive prices. This
gives consumers a better sense of variety when making purchases. Competition in its purest form creates small buyers and sellers none of which are too
large to negatively affect the market as a whole. Competitive markets can be dated back to ancient times when merchants competed in foreign trade. In
the 19th century economists considered competition as a natural phenomenon in which growth of an operation was fueled by supply and demand in a
free market economy. They also believed that supply and demand worked better in a laissez faire type environment. This was possible through freedom
to trade, transparent knowledge of market conditions, no government restrictions on trade, and access to buyers and sellers. These conditions prevented
any buyer or seller to significantly affect the market price of a single commodity. After the mid 1800's, limitations to compete became evident during
the industrial revolution. Corporations achieved manufacturing capabilities that would surpass their competitors and would allow them to fix prices
and squeeze out their rivals. Eventually some businesses became so large that they controlled enough market share to deceptively manipulate prices in
their industry. This activity created an atmosphere for President Theodore Roosevelt to launch his famoustrust busting campaigns. The era of antitrust

Antitrust Laws Of The Sherman Act And The Ftc Act
A preliminary question is what are antitrust laws? They are a series of laws designed to protect competition in the marketplace. Antitrust laws prevent
restrains of trade or commerce. Black's Law Dictionary defines antitrust laws as "[t]he body of law designed to protect trade and commerce from
restraints, monopolies, price–fixing, and price discrimination." The main law regulating antitrust is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which makes it illegal
for individuals or groups to restrain trade or commerce. Besides the Sherman Act, the other law that factors into Dental Examiners is the Federal Trade
Commission Act, which prohibits any "[u]nfair methods of competition." This law serves as the basis for the majority of Federal Trade... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
What is the goal of antitrust liability? Antitrust laws are designed to protect competition in markets. Early in the nation's history, there was widespread
fear of the dangers of monopolies and other restrictions on competition. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in order to prevent limits
on competition caused by private parties. Thus the main goal of antitrust law is to preserve "economic freedom" and a "free–enterprise system."
Specifically, it attempts to preserve "the freedom to compete" for businesses. In a practical sense, antitrust laws are seeking to prevent burdens on
competition in the marketplace.
When Are States Immune from Antitrust Liability?
To understand antitrust immunity, one must understand the different tests theUnited States Supreme Court has applied to state's agencies and boards to
determine immunity. Courts largely use two tests to determine whether an entity has immunity from antitrust laws. Both tests provide the same
immunity, but they require the entity seeking the immunity to prove different requirements. The first test is the sovereign actor test, and it provides
immunity to state actors using sovereign power. The second test, known as the Midcal test, asks whether the entity seeking immunity is following a
clearly articulated state policy, and whether the entity is actively supervised by the state. Both of these tests are

The Sherman Antitrust Act In The 19th Century
The Sherman Antitrust Act is a law that Congress passed to prevent any one company from gaining a monopoly over a market. Additionally, this law
helps protect new businesses from being crushed by larger corporations. For example, when the government stepped in to force Pac Bell Telphone
Services to separate due to the company having to much control of the market. Now, these anti–trust laws are easily enforced in the present day,
however in the early 19th–century lack of technology and payoffs made the implantation of these statutes tough. For example, when a large corporation
wanted to buy a smaller one they could simply use a shell corporation to make the purchase without anyone being able to link the acquisition back to
the original company.

The Company Of Free Enterprise And Market Competition
The foundation of the United States economy is the foundation of free enterprise and market competition. The competitive market allows consumers to
benefit from price reductions, increasing quality, and allowing consumers the freedom of choice. These ideas of free enterprise and market competition
are so crucial that they are protected by Congressional antitrust laws. As the Supreme Court has explained, "Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman
Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free–enterprise system
as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms." (Harris, pg. 197, 2014) The healthcare industry is incredibly... Show
(Harris, pg. 214–217, 2014) The question is that can Dr. Stuart state a valid claim against the doctors at General for their denial of her privileges
under a three requirements of Section 1 of the Sherman Act? Do the providers at General have a defense against Dr. Stuart's denial of privileges
within the restrictions of Section 1 of the Sherman Act? Furthermore, does Dr. Stuart have a valid claim against the collaboration and coercions of
General and Happy within Section 1 of the Sherman Act? Any application of Section 1 antitrust legislation must violate all three claims: proof of
conspiracy, restraint of trade, and effect on interstate commerce. The first question poses the question of Dr. Stuart having a claim against General
for violating section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act is composed of three claims as previously stated. The first claim is the claim of
conspiracy. In this claim, Dr. Stuart has no ground against the doctors of General. This is because "officers and employees of the same corporation
cannot conspire with each other or with their corporation, similarly two parts of the same organization cannot conspire with each other." As the
decision was made solely by the physicians and administrators of General, they can not conspire with one another and therefore cannot commit
conspiracy. (Harris, pg. 200, 2014) The second claim is in regards to the restraint of trade. The type of restraint demonstrated would most closely

The Modern History Of Oil
The modern history of oil can be traced back to the early nineteenth century in 1849. Abraham Gesner, a prominent Canadian geologist, can be seen
as one of the primary founders of Kerosene. Before this invention of kerosene, whale oil was the primary application for illumination in lamps but it
was expensive and gave off a strong odor. Kerosene provided a cheaper and cleaner burning alternative. Shortly after his discovery, he founded the
Kerosene Gas Light Company and first began by installing streetlights in Canada. Demand grew substantially and lead to Gesner relocating to the
United States. Even though Gesner never hit it rich from his discovery, he has been known in history as the Father of the Petroleum Industry. People had
begun to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bissel had the crazy idea of drilling for oil. This was seen as irrational at the time, since mining was the standard. Bissel ended up contracting a
man named Edwin Drake to investigate oil deposits in Pennsylvania. In August of 1859, Drake strikes oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania. This event
goes down as being one of the major moments in the birth of the petroleum industry and is what initiated the oil boom. Titusville and the
surrounding areas began to fill with oil refineries and wells. The Titusville population alone increased from 250 to 10,000 in just five years. Ten
years after Drake's discovery, annual domestic output was at 4 million barrels. Oil became the second most valuable export of the United States
during this time. Because of this large influx, price per barrel shrunk down to 10 cents. This caused the producers to create the Oil Creek Association,
which capped output and enacted floor pricing to $4 a barrel. By 1970, John D. Rockefeller had officially founded the Standard Oil Company. This time
period for the oil industry was a topic of hot debate as there were no anti–monopoly laws in place at the time. Standard Oil became the largest oil
refiner and Multinational Corporation in the world. Rockefeller was aware of the competition in the oil industry and proactively began to purchase
many of them. Any company that was purchased and deemed inefficient was shut down. Rockefeller also began secret negotiations with

Sherman Antitrust Act Case Study
Chad, Excellent post this week! The driving force behind a labor dispute is usually associated with money. There is typically a demand for an
owner to increase their profits each year, while the players desire to make more money each year as well. The benefits of a collective bargaining
agreement are that it will ensure there is some level of equality for both the owners and the players in negotiations. What is your opinion on the
Sherman Antitrust Act? Do you believe that baseball should be treated as if it were any other sport? The Sherman Antitrust Act was established in
order to allow baseball to operate more freely, but at what cost to everyone else? These players were absolutely treated like a piece of property, which
is somewhat understandable

Case: The Sherman Antitrust Act
On May 18, 1998 The United States Department of Justice, along with 20 states and lead prosecutor Joel Klein, initiated a suit against Microsoft
Corporation with accusations of the company being a monopoly and violating sections 1 and 2 of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.
In 1991 the Federal Trade Commission inquired about the potential for Microsoft to abuse its monopoly in the PC operating system market. 2 years
later with a stalemate vote of 2–2 the FTC closed the investigation, however, In August of the same year the Department of Justice began to investigate
Microsoft which resulted in Microsoft not tying in other Microsoft products into the sale of the Windows operating system. Microsoft later added
Internet Explorer, their own web browser, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the plaintiff noticed that icons disappeared and reappeared in the video, which hinted at the video being illegitimate. Microsoft spokespeople
refuted the accusation and claimed the council was nitpicking at their editors not doing a 100% perfect job (Business
Week).
In the end, the judge found Microsoft to indeed be a monopoly which threatened other companies in the business and ordered that Microsoft be split
into two companies. One that would produce the OS and one that produce the other software. However, Microsoft appealed this decision and the D.C.
District Court of Appeals overturned the decision and in 2001, ruled that Microsoft could bundle their web browser with its operating system but would
also have to share its programming interfaces with third–party companies (The United States Department of
Justice).
I support the appellate court's decision as it allows for other companies to remain competitive by using Microsoft's programming interfaces. It does
allow Microsoft to gain a competitive edge by tying their browser into the OS, however there are much better browsers that are available to be used
with better performance than Internet

The Sherman Antitrust Act
Born in 1823, John Sherman was going to change how the United States economy worked. His name is part of a very important act; the Sherman
Antitrust Act. this disbanded all monopolized corporations and said price discrimination and interlocking doctorates are prohibited. Though this act
was very crucial, many people took advantage. As a result of this another act had to be passed. A legislation that could strengthen the Sherman Act and
take down all the trust. An act that could would not take the government time and money to trust bust the fraud businesses, but to take the
responsibility of each individual in a business. Although pricing fixing and exclusive dealings were addressed in the Sherman Act, there needed to be
another antitrust act to establish and extend the unfair business practices during the 19 century era.
Price fixing and exclusive dealings are harmful for consumers and small businesses trying to compete with large businesses. The issues with price
fixing is that the consumers have to buy an item for a certain price. There is no supply and demand, along with the fact that the prices can fluctuate
without any certain pattern. As the prices become higher, the company get ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The previous bill was very depended on the government, and expected the government to trust bust, something that President Roosevelt did, but that
was not enough. Monopoly affected many people, some negatively and some positively, yet this does not mean monopoly is correct form for an
economy to grow. Needless to say, another act would prevent anticompetitive practices, corporations from purchasing stock in a competitive firm, and
should recognize the rights of labor strike and exempt unions from antitrust prosecution. These laws and rules are important to abide, or else it would
be only the selfish succeeding in a selfish

American Needle vs. The National Football League Properties
The teams of the NFL established the NFLP or National Football League Properties to "develop, license, and market" the teams' intellectual property
in 1963. The organization allowed a certain amount of nonexclusive licenses to a variety of licensees. American Needle was one of the licensees.
They made a variety of headwear that displayed the various NFL team logos. The licensing agreement lasted until 2000. The NFL teams sanctioned
the NFLP to give Reebok an exclusive license for headwear. With this decision, the NFLP did not renew American Needle's license or the licenses of
any other headwear vendors.
American Needle Inc. filed a suit in an Illinois district court against the NFL, NFLP, NFL teams, and Reebok, claiming that this exclusive license
agreement violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 В§ U.S.C. 1, which outlaws any "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade."
American Needle argued that because individual teams separately own their team logos and trademarks, their collective agreement to authorize NFLP
to award the exclusive headwear license to Reebok, was a conspiracy to restrict other vendors' ability to obtain licenses for the teams' intellectual
property.
The respondents, NFL, moved for a motion of summary judgment on the Section 1 claim, arguing it was immune from antitrust liability as a single
entity. In response, American Needle sought a continuance and asked the U.S. District Court to allow discovery, a motion opposed by the

The Copyright Of The Sherman Antitrust Act
Have you been unjustly accused, then punished? So have many companies. When dealing with trusts and monopolies, controversy is sure to arise. This
discussion is a result of the benefits, and also the disadvantages of monopolies in our market. With these arguments going on, discussions of the
Sherman Antitrust Act in many legal cases, have been whether or not this law is beneficial to our economy and population, or harmful. People have
gathered on both sides of this debate looking for the truth behind the effect of the Sherman Antitrust act. To learn how the Sherman Antitrust Act works
we must look back to when and why it was created. In the past, and even now, the Sherman Antitrust Act has been and is being misunderstood, but if...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This Act gave them the power to hammer down on companies that seemed threatening to them, making it a success. Equally important, there were also
disadvantages for many of the consumers. Some of these inconveniences including, fixed prices, and poor quality. The public often does not respond
well to these things making it a priority and a sign that things needed to change. The government isn't always out to get people, in fact they often want
to help, and by deciding on creating the Sherman Antitrust Act they indeed helped many a consumer get away from high and unfair prices. Besides,
this economy, being of a competitive nature since our revolution, will not be left alone to be ruined by the many monopolies dominating it. The
government often looks to protect this economy, resulting in the action to stop monopolies from ruling the market. Additionally, John Sherman,
Secretary of Treasury under President Rutherford B. Hayes, Senator of Ohio, and principal author of the Sherman Antitrust Act, tells us of a reason of
his own for this law being drawn up. The reason, as stated by Mr. Sherman, is to protect the country from the foul effects of the buildings of
monopolies, rather than the final end result of the monopolies. He even went as far as to say that the actions of companies after they become
monopolies are even good for innovation ("John Sherman"). People even now are

Antitrust Practices and Market Power
Antitrust Practices and Market Power
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to look into a case of antitrust behavior being investigated involving Johnson and Johnson and Novartis
AG, and to analyze and discuss the various antitrust practices that the organizations involved are accused of utilizing. Its purpose is also to discuss
how the practices being deployed in this scenario can help any of the organizations to secure market power, which is defined by the ability of a firm
to profitably raise the market price of a good or service over marginal cost (Market Power). Finally, it will also discuss the impact that an oligopoly in
this case has on society, and will determine whether such scenarios are helpful or harmful to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The article also quoted a representative of the European Union (EU) as stating that the competition arm of the EC would investigate whether
contractual arrangements between the companies may have had the object or effect of hindering the entry on to the market of generic versions of
Fentanyl in the Netherlands (Whalen, 2011).
Effects of Antitrust Behavior by Johnson & Johnson and Novartis AG
Restricting market access to a generic drug provider by way of a contractual agreement or deal results in financial implications for all entities involved
in the deal. The oligopoly–holding company would incur large expenses as a result of making a payout to the generic drug maker for delaying release
of their product. The generic drug maker would certainly benefit from receiving the payout, however at the expense of losing any market share gained
up to that point. From the point of view of the consumer, no longer having access to a specific drug that was effective at treating a particular condition
could result in harm or hindered treatment. It is important to note that not all alternatives of the same drug will always have the same effect. If upon
completion of investigation both J&J and Novartis are found guilty of antitrust behavior, both entities and perhaps key decision–making figures could
be subject to hefty fines and even incarceration, which are typical sentences for

The Pros And Cons Of Antitrust Laws
The first antitrust law was passed in 1890 by Congress called, the Sherman Act. It was a wide–ranging charter of economic liberty designed to preserve
unrestricted competition within the rule of trade. Congress then passed two additional antitrust laws in 1914, called the Federal Trade Commission Act
that formed the FTC, and the Clayton Act. These would be the three essential antitrust, federal laws that are still in effect today (The Antitrust Laws,
2013). Antitrust laws prohibit illegal mergers and business practices, which leaves the court of law to resolve which laws were broken based on the
case facts. Antitrust laws have the same straightforward objective and that is to protect the progression of competition to benefit consumers, in making
sure that there are incentives for companies to function proficiently, to preserve low prices, and higher quality(The Antitrust Laws, 2013). The three
essential antitrust, federal laws The Sherman Act The Sherman Act forbids contracts and sedition in limitation of trade, monopolization, attempted
monopolization, or conspiracy to monopolize. In1914, the Supreme Court agreed that the Sherman Act does not exclude every limitation of trade, only
those that are perverse. For instance,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court states that all violations of the Sherman Act will correspondingly violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, the FTC
does not officially administer the Sherman Act, they can bring cases under the Federal Trade Commission Act in contrast to the same class of actions
which violates the Sherman Act. The Federal Trade Commission Act correspondingly, influence additional practices that harm competition, however,
may not fit precisely into particular classes of conduct officially prohibited by the Sherman Act; only the Federal Trade Commission can bring cases
under the Federal Trade Commission Act (The Antitrust Laws,

The Pros And Cons Of The Anti-Trust Act
20. Nov. 2014 The anti–trust acts started out in the late 1800s. The anti–trust act means that the government can prevent the growth of a monopoly.
There were several forms of the anti–trust acts. The first form of the act is the Sherman Act of 1980; it outlaws the restrains of trade and
monopolization (McConnell, Brue, and Flynn). The consequences of not following this act meant that the government can either break up the
monopoly into competing firms or stop it from engaging in the specific business they were monopolizing. Then the Clayton Act of 1914 was declared it
was made to strengthen and make improvise on the Sherman Act (McConnell, Brue, and Flynn). It stated that tying contracts, price discrimination,
interlocking directorates, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Even after the disagreements on anti–trust laws, the Supreme Court has the final say in the decision. A firm will be sued by the government if it has a
very high market share and if there is evidence of market dominance (McConnell, Brue, and Flynn). However, even if the government was the case,
the problem always is on how to correct the monopoly so it doesn't continue to be in violation of the anti–trust laws. One particular anti–trust suit that
is famous is United States versus Microsoft. In 2000 Microsoft was found guilty of violating the Sherman Act by challenging competitor companies
over its operating systems by being hostile to competitor's software (McConnell, Brue, and Flynn). Microsoft used anticompetitive ways to maintain
their monopoly power. Microsoft felt threatened by competing companies so they signed contracts with PC makers that require them to feature Internet
Explorer on the PC desktop and penalized other competing software's (McConnell, Brue, and Flynn). In addition, Microsoft gave coding to friendly
companies rather than competing companies and they created software making competing companies software incompatible with Windows. Microsoft
appealed their district court decision taking it

Sherman Antitrust Act (ATM)
The opposing side received a 10% when using services of the State Bank in an ATM. The person claimed the activity to be the violation of Section one
of the Sherman Antitrust Act. There the issue has to be considered from this perspective. Section one violation of the antitrust has to have three
elements such as an agreement that restrains competitions and affects interstate commerce. It could be argued that the settlement between both banks
is not a violation. It was a deal signed between two representatives of a business that declared partnership. Therefore, benefits of the above were also
presented to the customer is these institutions. Consequently, customers were able to use ATMs with no charge. However, the earlier mentioned
establishments

How Do Antitrust Policies Help Or Hurt Society

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Renee Delgado

More from Renee Delgado (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How Do Antitrust Policies Help Or Hurt Society