Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to regulate monopolies if it has a direct effect on commerce. It marked the success of the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in destroying the "Beef Trust". This case established a ...
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.
Perhaps the most famous antitrust enforcement actions brought by the federal government were the break-up of AT&T's local telephone service monopoly in the early 1980s [67] and its actions against Microsoft in the late 1990s. Additionally, the federal government also reviews potential mergers to attempt to prevent market concentration.
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), [1] is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law.Judge Learned Hand's opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Elizabeth I assured monopolies would not be abused in the early era of globalisation. Europe around the 15th century was changing quickly. The new world had just been opened up, overseas trade and plunder was pouring wealth through the international economy and attitudes among businessmen were shifting.
The Japanese attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor destroyed almost 200 U.S. aircraft, took 2,400 lives, and swayed Americans to support the decision to join World War II.
A break up could be a material risk, however, as "the two companies are kind of joined at the head because of their mutual dependency on each other," Arthur said. Ultimately, the Swift "situation ...
A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: [17] the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and; the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.