Anti-trust Enforcement

Paper Summary:

Trusts are viewed as competition destroyers which attempt to control the market for a product. Anti-trust laws arose out of the abuse of such trusts and these laws persevere to this day. This paper questions whether the government's enforcement is executed when the economic climate is right or whether the enforcement is occurring at regular intervals. It also questions whether certain corporations, like Microsoft, are unwitting targets of the government. The overall question in this paper is whether the enforcement of anti-trust laws harms American competition. The response lies in the history of anti-trust laws, the enforcement of such laws and the meaning of competition within economic understanding.

Paper Outline:
Introduction
The History of Anti-trust Laws
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914)
The Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)
Robinson-Patman Act (1936), Celler-Kefauver Act (1950) and The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976
Competition
Enforcement
Has the Microsoft Anti-trust Case Helped or Hindered American Competition?
Has the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Helped or Hindered American Competition?
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"In 1911, two decades after the Sherman Act was passed, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company exerted unlawful monopolistic authority. This was the first major court decision since the Act was passed. The two mentioned companies were forced to dissolve into smaller firms that would compete against each other. The courts have not been consistent when interpreting the meaning of monopoly power under the Sherman Act either."

More papers on Anti-trust Enforcement:

• Research Paper # 64204 : "Anti-Trust, Mergers and Competition Policy"
• Analytical Essay # 118185 : "Anti-Trust Law"
• Case Study # 45529 : "Anti-Trust Law"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: