The USA Antitrust Law: Howard Antitrust Charge Sheet - Literature review Example

The violation of the anti-trust act by Howard and the other roller bit industry of section one is;

Formation of agreements with other industries (monopolies. cartels and vigilantes)
Un-reasonable restraint of competition
Interstate commerce interference
Violation of section two of the anti-trust law by the latter industries;

Monopolizing the market, choke holding, and controlling the activities of the market
Unlawful acquisition and maintenance of forced power to affiliates, the other upcoming industries in the market by regulation of prices favoring the latter industries.
Violation of section three would solely depend on the nature of business dealing that Howard and the other four industries have with the other inter-states in the domain of their business.

Howard and the other four industries have formed a cartel that the antitrust act is supposed to combat; they have taken matters into their hands of changing prices at will to suit the market and so to pull any upcoming firms out of business. The law prevents and tries with all its mandates and power to prevent artificial and inconsistency of price raising and lowering that affect supply and trade in any business functions. People found monopolizing this stance are guilty as charged by the law.

The information given its states that the price charges of the bits from the four counterparts of Howard are relatively uniform with Howards over the period of seven years but have been relatively changing over the last few days, this change has been initiated by the five firms. This is observed when a new company tries to venture into this line of business, as claimed in the information on two occasions the prices have been inconsistent and after the new company has sold out to Howard and their counterpart cartels resumes the prices to normal. This suppression and monopolizing of prices and upcoming industries have also affected the consumer because it hard for one to budget on prices that are not consistence.

Howard alone advocates for contracts that are solely binding them to their consumers, by enforcing conditions that only they can repair, dispose and resell back policy of their products in the sale contracts manuals.