Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Levin, Leslie A. "One Man's Meat Is Another Man's Poison: Imagery of Wholesomeness in the Discourse of Meatpacking from 1900–1910," Journal of American & Comparative Cultures (2001) 24#1‐2 pp 1–14. Libecap, Gary D. "The rise of the Chicago packers and the origins of meat inspection and antitrust," Economic inquiry (1992) 30#2 pp 242–262.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) a monopoly can be deemed to exist depending on the size of the market. It was generally irrelevant how the monopoly was achieved since the fact of being dominant on the market was negative for competition. (Criticised by Alan Greenspan.)
Standard Oil (Refinery No. 1 in Cleveland, Ohio, pictured) was a major company broken up under United States antitrust laws.. The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history.
Monopoly, Parker Brothers' world-famous board game for budding capitalists, first went on sale on Feb. 6, 1935. In the depths of the Great Depression, Monopoly offered weary families a way to ...
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.
The Myth of the Robber Barons (2010) Friedman, Walter A. and Tedlow, Richard S. "Statistical Portraits of American Business Elites: a Review Essay." Business History 2003 45(4): 89-113. Geisst, Charles R. Monopolies in America: Empire builders and their enemies from Jay Gould to Bill Gates (2000).
11. Thurn and Taxis Mail. The private company operated postal service back in the 1800s and enjoyed a monopoly on postal services. The company's dominance came to an end after Prussian victory ...
Section 2 of the Act forbids monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct ...