Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Justice Department and FTC lost most of the monopolization cases they brought under section 2 of the Sherman Act during this era. One of the government's few anti-monopoly victories was United States v. AT&T, which led to the breakup of Bell Telephone and its monopoly on U.S. telephone service in 1982. [30]
In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly" or "regulated monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.
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.
Due to its popularity, it's often said that more Monopoly money -- $15,140 per game -- is printed each year than is printed of real U.S. paper money, but that's not true.
This is why by law, a monopoly is defined as an entity which has significant market power, which includes the ability to charge extremely high prices and prevent the entry of competition. The ...
A monopoly has considerable although not unlimited market power. A monopoly has the power to set prices or quantities although not both. [37] A monopoly is a price maker. [38] The monopoly is the market [39] and prices are set by the monopolist based on their circumstances and not the interaction of demand and supply. The two primary factors ...
The article delved deeply into Amazon's anti-competitive strategies, which consisted chiefly in undercutting competitors' prices and consequently taking losses; the company's expectation that this ...
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 ...