The USA Antitrust Law - Assignment Example

USA ANTITRUST LAW Name: Grade Course: Tutor’s Name: (5TH, January, 2011) USA Antitrust Law Introduction The antitrust strategy was made for efficient competition for open/free markets. This started in the United States, the law started after the civil war with an increase in petroleum, cotton and other agricultural products. The Sherman act of 1890 made a declaration that restraint of trade or other related actions by monopolies was illegal. Objectives of the antitrust law are the Countering Unfair Competition. Protecting the rights, priorities and interests of businesses and consumers by enhancing fair competition for better economic growth. There are two categories of unfair competition the traditional ones which are the likes of the counterfeits, bribes and adverts contrary to the product. The other category is by the government by certain persons in power who misuse their power to access of institutions or generally interference with the economy to a point that it is seen as sabotage to the local producers or manufacturers (Bullock, 2001).The government however cannot sue or charge themselves and so they are at liberty to go free on unfair completion. Termination of monopolies could boost the productivity and quality of products produced. The antitrust laws are meant to deal with some four serious vices which include: 1. The avoidance of entry to agreements which hamper free and fair competition and lead to eventual unsuccessful business. 2. Regulation of monopolies or bigger and dominant companies from preventing small scale companies being competitive. 3. Feasible competition is enhanced in the Oligopolistic industries. 4. Merging companies need to be monitored to concentrate on production and handle effectively the economic pressures. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 works hand in hand with the Sherman Antitrust Act by having additional clauses on issues such as: Pricing and various discrimination with buyers and presence of a monopoly. Issues concerning contracts and agreements. Mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition. This was later amended by the Robinson-Patman Act was more of an amendment of the Clayton Act mainly dealing with the noncompetitive procedures used in the discrimination of the equity in distribution. Question 1 The Sherman Act which was a law enacted in 1890 to curb unnecessary competition and is divided into several sections each tackling various aspects of competitive law. The competition law gives the competition authority the powers that it needs to enforce the law. This extends to the provision for the agency to conduct market surveys, to hold hearings and take testimonies, to examine financial records and to conduct dawn raids upon the authorization by the court. Section 1 specifically explains and exempts detailed revenue of anticompetitive conduct in the aspects of every contract, agreement, combination, conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce between several companies or undertakings is declared to be illegal. This means that NATLA forbidding its members from doing business in other locations is a contravene of the Act making it illegal and is liable to conviction for a felony and a fine. MTL is within the law to join another trucking company. The case of State Oil Co. v Khan where the court the courts held that unreasonable restraints were forbidden by the congress. The reason analysis was applied and in which the plaintiffs put to show that there was an unreasonable act against them thus making it unlawful. Monopoly power can be got from various barriers from other competitors’ economic barrier which also has economies of scale which has to do with the lowering cost of large production. Some sectors, especially those in which natural monopolies exist, are subject to regulation in various forms and there are inevitably instances, but these sectors are also subject to the competition law. The competition /regulatory interface are the final process. However, it is apparent that in the private sector other private actions sanctioned or required by government can also escape the coverage of the competition law. Having large capital can also block small scale business leading to sole business. Technological abilities means that they have up to date technology that can allow mass production at a faster rate and most of this are too expensive. Have close to no substitutes or products of same high quality is another factor since consumers would have no choice but to have what the monopolistic company is producing. The Per se illegal approach can be used against NATLA as it can be used as it is assumed not to be helpful to the public and as such is forbidden. It also prevents the need for having a complex economic investigation of the industry in question and determines whether a fastidious restraint has been unreasonable. The land mark case of National Soc. Of professional Engineers v United States where it was decided that where the economic impact of a practice is not obvious, then it is illegalized. In the event of lack of protection accord to the determining an antitrust analysis which turned into an expulsion this was in the case of FTC v Indiana Federation of Dentists. NATLA has every aspect of anticompetitive practices as expulsion from the board is not warranted to being in business (McWilliams & Keith, 1994). The 25mile distance is highly unreasonable as it may be seen as more logical if it were made less as now it seems that a monopoly Nordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co which was a Swedish manufacturer of arms made an agreement with an American gun inventor on condition that they were not to make the riffles in any other part of the world or compete with the plaintiff. We find that in our case NATLA could foresee completion if any of its members registered with another truck-leasing enterprise and thus the fine. Rule of reason is used to determine whether section 1 of the Sherman act has been violated an example of such price discrimination. Rule of reason approach which does not follow a specified rule /criteria is said to be illegal or those that are beneficial to the public sector. The main principles of this rule is that market power is given a sense uncompetitive activities (Homan, 2000), to lack of concentration in markets by producers of similar products. The various production levels can lead to an element a raise in the prices. NATLA for example could be making way more profits that its members make and thus the need for them to be in other transport companies which will allow them a smaller radius and improve on their production; FTC vs. Indiana Federal of Dentists. Esso Petroleum Case, where Lord Diplock held that the restraint of trade is that which refrains the potential responsibility of persons and it inflicts restraint of a person with regards to his profession and the future of his enterprise. Partial restrain however is more reasonable to the business. Rice v Norman Williams Co. in which was held that violation of the antitrust laws prevent in competitive behavior. NATLA might be applying the very same principles of Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat (1977), in which court held that the fail of a single company is bad for completion because it is the very down fall of others in the sense that amounts to a reduced failure of individual company’s times fall under the major brand company such as NATLA it strong hold on the specific location was enough to crumpled all other stagnated companies. If necessary restraint of trade must be undoubtedly outlined as a policy of the state and supervised by the state to avoid oppression the case of California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum. Question2 A monopoly can be defined as situation where the market/industry is dictated by a single supplier who has the benefits of discretion in decisions of prices, unless it is subject to a form of undeviating control by the government. For most of the economic setups, they are known as oligopoly where only a specified few producers control a very concentrated marketrated fields. A duopoly is a situation where only two companies lead amongst many. The Sherman act of 1890 forbid monopolies in the United States in Section 2 of the Act has forbidden monopoly unless there is an aspect of monopolistic competition that despite it, there still is competition (McWilliams & Keith, 1994). An expansion of an undertaking can increase the monopolistic power. The government can allow for a specified monopoly only on strict specified supervision to avoid extortion of the consumers. Monopolies happen to have market power because they are sole producers and control the productivity and prices of products giving them an opportunity to exploit the consumers. There is no competition and so the quality of the products reduces and quantity increases meaning that the price has to be reasonable so that it cans the products or services can be bought. In a competitive environment, the consumers can move to a product that is less costly but still of superior quality. Monopolies can in tern affect the economy of a state if not well looked into as the returns gained will be minimal. In a monopoly, the firm is actually also an industry and have prices as they wish dally major in due to the in appropriate regulations. They normally major in the products that have no substitutes such as Orange 100 this can be likened to the case of Monsanto which owns more than half of the commercial seed market. Monopolies which practice price discrimination normally do it in several formats which are for all the products meaning that if other companies produce the same product at a higher price, the it will be that they are stopping their growth and competition; United States v. Aluminum Co. of America. The other method is where the large quantities are produced at very low costs, this is done by big companies which choke the smaller companies by mass production at a price that would lead the latter to bankruptcy thus they also cut down on the deadweight loss as the others will venture to other profit gaining projects. Such pricing lead to a restraint of trade as it acts as a closure for the upcoming companies. Monopoly power can be got from various barriers from other competitors’ economic barrier which also has economies of scale which has to do with the lowering cost of large production. Some sectors, especially those in which natural monopolies exist, are subject to regulation in various forms and there are inevitably instances, but these sectors are also subject to the competition law (Blicksilver & Gunton, 2005). The competition /regulatory interface are the final process. However, it is apparent that in the private sector other private actions sanctioned or required by government can also escape the coverage of the competition law. Having large capital can also block small scale business leading to sole business. Technological abilities means that they have up to date technology that can allow mass production at a faster rate and most of this are too expensive. Have close to no substitutes or products of same high quality is another factor since consumers would have no choice but to have what the monopolistic company is producing. Dyco is one such that irrespective of there being in a field where there are other companies, it has created an environ of a monopolistic competitive state in being and gained profits from it. Microsoft and windows are monopolies which have been in the ream light for a very long while concerning the opening of the markets to other companies which can start up similar programs. In a recent case against it, they were defeated and thus came up other software’s despite of which are way cheaper than windows the consumers prefer it as it was the first in the market and have come to trust so it still has a monopoly power over the other Dyes. Question 3 There seems to be an Oligopoly in the case of Sweet Co. and the other three companies who colluded in the controlling the price of the sweeteners such is in the case of a sugar refining company in the case of Kidd v Pearson in which the caveat amptor rules were applied before parties got involved with the purchasing of items from the company in the sense that they make sure that they get quality. The Sherman act section one deals with the purposes of prevention of restraints to business and illegalities associated with the discriminatory pricing and maintain a competitive environment. Illegality comes in where the persona of commerce disregards the aspect of quality and grade of a particular product. The Clayton Act was enacted in 1914 and made illegal practices that would affect the completion or tended to create a monopoly and a rationale of there being a firm market (Kintner, 2003). The act has forbidden discrimination by the transactions that similar products at various prices to specified purchaser, compelling the purchasers to go in contracts, leading markets of commercial mergers and adopts a panel of member who then are allowed to be for the various companies. Consumers sued sweet co. on the basis of s4 of the Clayton Act which states that persons injured in business for reason against the antitrust laws as is seen in the case of Reiter v. Sonotone Corp which was held that the wholesale buyer of the commodity of a price increase and the increased price for the goods meant for personal use with the Violation of the antitrust rules.  Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat which is meant to be a compensation for the consumers. This means that the consumers in the first suit should be compensated. In the second suit, the supermarkets and grocery stores sue on behalf of the consumers who pick the items from a specified location. The over pricing was an injustice and the consumers were thus liable to compensation for monies which would otherwise have been use for a difference purpose; Hamman v. United States. According to the competition law the authorities are given the powers to that are necessary to enforce the law. Section 24 has the provision for the agency to set the required standards and the investigative powers, including the powers to conduct the market surveys, to hold hearings and take testimony, to examine books and the documents, and to conduct the dawn raids upon the authorization by the court. It also authorizes the agency to engage in competition advocacy by drafting its internal rules, to prosecute actions in court, to participate with other relevant offices in the government in the negotiation of internal agreements relating to the competition policy, and to enter into consent agreements in the cases. Article VII, sections 46-51 creates the sanctions for the violations of the law. These includes the powers to issue orders terminating unlawful practices and if necessary , requiring actions to eliminate the effects thereof, to impose the fines on both artificial and natural persons for conduct violations., in the case of abuse of dominance to request a court to dissolve or restructure the dominant firm (Harrington, 2008). Sweet co. got involved in a form of brokerage or other to be handled as compensation in reference to the sale of goods which is illegal and has by all aspects broken the laws of the land. The very aspect of the services and compensation is to be done on a competitive platter which then involves the aspects of withdrawal from a monopoly. The consumers in sweet co. knowing the Sherman Act can then understand that it is within their right to sue the company for the aspects which clearly puts them in a position that is not financially right. The second suit even though being conducted by retailers actually makes sense because the consumers are the back bone of the economy and without whom there’d be no income. They have to be well treated for by enhancing consumer protection rights in the suit for it to succeed. The third group comprises of persons who had bought products with Sweet Stuff and are suing for having purchased items at ridiculous prices. The bigotry in reimbursements indulgence and publicizing of the services and the likely penalties for them are necessary. The anti-laws objectively the show that indulgence in any other form or group of competitors is not really logical. In my opinion, the three suits are justified because the consumers had placed their trust in the enterprise only to be dejected by having the key player producers get involved in mergers that discriminate and restrain freedom of trade and create a bad profile to the sweetener company. All the suits will go through and Sweets Stuff will be legible to compensate its members to the fullest. Question 4 A merger can be defined as the joining of two or more businesses into one. This is done by competitors in a bid to curb competition, this are not illegal but can withstand questioning from the antitrust laws because it then becomes very uncompetitive and could end up as a monopoly. If a company such as Super and GBK are seeking to acquire assets of another company then they should seek how best to do so and within the stipulated laws of the Sherman Act failure to which it is subject to face criminal charges. Mergers are propelled possibility of financial benefits (Whish, 2003). The potential of the origin of the financial profits from mergers. Mergers are of several types: horizontal which involves taking control of a company that handles the same goods and services in the market. Vertical mergers are when the enterprise takes up the control of the consumers or merchant. A conglomerate merger; a company taking up a company which deals with a completely different line of business. The case of Brown shoe Co. v United States is one where the Celler-Kefauver Act was violated due to an illegal merger. Mergers from illegal unions can bring about very bad severe profit loses as was seen in the case of United States. Monopolistic mergers reduce the economic welfare of the participants especially if they’ve diminished the goal of being in a position not to control their goals as in section 7 of the Clayton Act whose aim is to enhance purpose is to enhance and maintain market structures for ample competition. A regulatory body should be put in place to review the merger under the competition law. In most regulated sectors the regulator also has the authority to deny a proposed merger on the grounds other than competition. DaimlerChrysler et al. v. Cuno et al is one such case on the horizontal mergers. S7 of the Clayton act determines whether the concentration by the merger will affect competition. The Clayton laws do not allow for persons to acquire the shares of another especially if they are subjects to the Federal Trade Commission and be involved in a line of commerce which they major aim for reducing competition. The horizontal merger guidelines of 1968 interpreted the said act in a merger’s perspective by the challenging such mergers to get them more competitive and reduce the monopoly. Super and GBK aim to merge to avoid the extra costs on transport and make a monopolistic merger which will amount to 55% of the propane industry and then could make the Tanzland economy strain because of the price control and this could be bad for the economy of the state. The guidelines clearly indicated show that in as much as the merge allows small scale companies to reach an economy of scale which then makes them reach a level that they ordinarily would have taken a longtime to reach or never reach, expansion both of staff and productivity. Economies of scale is also achieved by the optimum use of facilities in a company not to mention other benefits such as together adopting to the risk of diversification, less taxation because of the shared tax/taxation will be done for it as one organization. Employee motivation is also enhanced by the personalities. Preventing the parties from consummating their merger before the competition agency’s review is completed is of great importance, in addition to preserving the agency’s option to forbid the transaction completely; it creates an incentive for the parties to expedite the review, resulting in closer co-operation with the agency (Rubinfeld, 2001). However to prevent consummation in such cases a competition agency should be put in place with the powers to seek an order to that effect, if there are sufficient concerns about the transaction’s competitive effects. The body should have the powers to order the preliminary remedies in the conduct cases. Time is always the essence in mergers and since the entry of a preliminary order preventing the merger permanently, the prevailing view across the market is that the agency should be anticompetitive, this is ensured by forcing to apply to court for any such order. Alternatively, for such a preliminary injunction or perhaps a complement to it is the power to order that the parties should hold a separately their operations after consummation until the agency makes its decisions for the purpose of making a divestiture or dissolution more feasible. Efficiency can be reached by combination of the workers resources then coming up with greater economic success and profit. Ordinary commercial practices are reached by having properly defined requirements for an inoffensive business. A greater scope of efficiency is also achieved in terms of the consumer demand for commodities and is inclusive the new brands that have to come up and a brand name for Super. Tazland will succeed in challenging the proposed merger as it allowing the two biggest propane distributers to merge will crumple the rest of the firms and lead to high job losses and consumer exploitation because of the pricing. Super and GBK can be linked to the cases of Northen Securities Co. v United States which show that mergers are not always helpful as they make the respective economies not as successful because of sluggish dependency. The competition law should provide the competition agency with more jurisdiction in the regulated sectors than exists in many countries. There are no specific exemptions; the competition regulating body must approve all the mergers in the business sector, with the input of the regulator .Interagency co-operation seems to be working in mergers, but there is relatively little interaction in conduct matters. It would seem that the regulated sectors could be fruitful sources for important dominance cases and possibly also for the other major cases. Further, while the established body’s ability to engage in competition advocacy is limited by its budget, it could do more in this field. Expanding its role in the regulated sectors, however, requires developing working relationships with the regulators, who have critical industry expertise. Question 5 Perfect competition is a situation where there are several companies such as the likes of Durab, Battron and Allthere who even though are the major stake holders in the business still allow room for the upcoming firms to compete healthily in all business aspects. A monopolize seems to be cropping up because the Caman batteries were not able to be gain ample distribution for the various commodities. The resources which are used in the supply and spread of the batteries could be what made the raise in the price in as much as Nisobot’s import rates are quite high. There needs to be Allocative efficiency in which the distribution of the goods and services is in accordance to the consumers’ wishes and reflect in the pricing of the commodity which should never be above the production costs. Competition is dependent on the number of companies try to find consumers and exit/enter a market. To prevent consummation in such cases a competition agency should be put in place with the powers to seek an order to that effect, if there are sufficient concerns about the transaction’s competitive effects. The body should have the powers to order the preliminary remedies in the conduct cases. Time is always the essence in mergers and since the entry of a preliminary order preventing the merger permanently, the prevailing view across the market is that the agency should be anticompetitive, this is ensured by forcing to apply to court for any such order. Alternatively, for such a preliminary injunction or perhaps a complement to it is the power to order that the parties should hold a separately their operations after consummation until the agency makes its decisions for the purpose of making a divestiture or dissolution more feasible. Goods provided at the lowest costs possible are then a sign of a community’s wealth not being increasingly used in the production process which is normally referred to productive efficiency. We see that the new companies are created in a bid to strive for the consumers and pose an interest in their products. Technology and research enlightenment is what is also attributing to new companies because they come up with strategies that are fast and acquiring of machinery is not as difficult with enough capital (Tony, 2004). Characteristics of perfect competition is such that there are several buyers and the various firms have little effect on the price as is seen in that they cannot increase the prices to unreasonable rates. All the companies produce batteries and are elastic for the purpose of serving all the consumers. Assumptions are made to ensure the most perfect competition is practiced and this includes: 1. That every supplier has a role in the market and is said to the price taker because the higher the manufacturers in a certain field the more the chances of there being in a properly set business. 2. Homogenous products are to be substitutes of each other in the chances of shortage or sabotage. 3. The policy consumers always being right and should be enlightened on the market price by adverts and have a because if one firm decides to charge beyond the margin price then a substitution effect is taken up. 4. The assumption of equal distribution of resources and make improvements in the technology. 5. Lack of barriers allows the equilibrium to make profits. 6. There is a lower profit margins are enacted to engage in the competitive behavior. The investigations should begin in the aspects of establishing the prospects of a monopoly and the major companies having colluded in the making and control of the pricing which will lead to the loss to other companies and gain for them. The price changes were opinions shared by the first two companies whose responses were on price increase was almost the same. Which is all a violation of the antitrust laws which control the commerce industry? The case of Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. U.S and the Northern Security Co. case which hold the same sentiments which was conducted by on the issue of restraint of trade and its effects on the commerce of the various industries. On the other hand, in as much as the companies seem to be controlling the prices they are also in a bid to handle prospects of there being an industry in which the producers are not always seeking for ways of tormenting the consumers with to react as per the production the high prices but also, they are trying to counter the expenses on the increase of production, the case of Bologna v US. Then again investigations on matters that are meant to benefit the consumers could be crucial as they as citizen could think that the government is only concerned with them when it is not getting a huge lump of tax by prices which favor the consumers. This could be a bad political image for the investigators. The industry as it is need more of government overlooking to ensure that the pricing remains as it is and does not really favor any firm which is seeking power of the industry. The investigation as a whole will be enough to ensure that the case of monopolies and unnecessary procedures of merger by smaller firms to pull down the larger stakeholders and for self prosper. Having large capital can also block small scale business leading to sole business (Bork, 1993). Technological abilities means that they have up to date technology that can allow mass production at a faster rate and most of this are too expensive. Have close to no substitutes or products of same high quality is another factor since consumers would have no choice but to have what the monopolistic company is producing as seen in the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co in which it was all illegalized. References Blicksilver, J & Gunton, G. (2005). Pioneer Spokesman for a Labor­Big Business Entente, Business History Journal. 31(1): 1­22 Bork, R. (1993). The Antitrust Paradox. New York: Free Press Bullock, C. (2001). Trust literature: A Survey and Criticism, Journal of Economics. 15(4): 167­217 Harrington, J. (2008). Antitrust Enforcement. New York: Academic Press. Homan, P. (2000). John Bates Clark: Earlier and Later Phases of his Work. Journal of Economics 42: 39  Kintner, E. (2003). The Legislative History of the Federal Antitrust Laws and Related Statutes. New York: Chelsea House. McWilliams, A & Keith, K. (1994). The Genesis of the Trusts. International Journal of Industrialization. 13(61): 245­267 Rubinfeld, L. (2001). Antitrust Policy. Social & Behavioral Sciences Journal. 4(7): 553-560. Tony, F. (2004). Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America Cambridge: Cambridge University Press  Whish, R. (2003). Competition Law. 5th Ed. Oxford: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Read More