The Impact Of Leniency Programs On Anti Competitive Behavior And Increase The Industry Output Level And The Social Benefit

The numbers of firms that produce identical products or goods which are homogenous are called market structure. Industrial regulation is the government regulation on an entire industry with the objective of keeping a close eye on the industry prices and take advantage of consumers. Rules set by government and agencies that help control the operations of businesses who may demonstrate monopoly power in their organization. Monopoly may lead to consumers being exploited (higher prices) and consumers paying way too much for a product.

Antitrust laws are meant to protect competition in markets. They try to ensure that all individuals have an “equally opportunity in honest competition.” Early in the nation’s history, there was widespread fear of the dangers of monopolies and other restrictions on competition. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to prevent limits on competition caused by private parties. Thus the main goal of antitrust law is to preserve “economic freedom” and a “free-enterprise system.” Specifically, it attempts to preserve “the freedom to compete” for businesses. In a practical sense, antitrust laws are seeking to prevent burdens on competition in the marketplace.

The role of antitrust laws has been the subject of numerous publications that have attempted to provide a precise set of reasons and inspirations for their creation. However, there are still many schools of thought on the subject and much debate over the effectiveness and legitimate implementation of these laws. This paper analyzes the three main antitrust laws that the federal branch of the United States government uses to try to restrict monopolies. This paper also looks at antitrust laws in the modern business environment, and attempts to relay the information in a manner that a newcomer to the subject will understand the concept as it relates to modern technology and business practices. The findings of this paper indicate that the topic of antitrust laws is more complex than many believe and, depending on the position of the person affected by monopolies, the sentiment ranges widely.

Laws and Regulations are not easily defined when antitrust laws are violates. There are many versions and analysis which often leads to agree to disagree. With public support, antitrust laws can be enforced and effective but with ignorance and indifference, it can become weak.

One law, which helps protect businesses and promotes fair competition for the benefit of the consumers, is the US Anti-Trust law. This law is comprised of three different acts: The Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. The first role these acts perform is to restrict the formation of cartels which would perform outside of the guidelines of the government and there for not be bound by there laws. The second role these acts perform is to ensure no single business entity can perform a certain level of mergers and acquisitions, which would essentially turn them into a monopoly and reduce competition. Overall, the antitrust laws are constantly debated for their overall functionality and efficiency in protecting the fair business practices of the United States. [2] “One view, mostly closely associated with the "Chicago School of economics" suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of

The predominant view in the United States is that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed with the intent to protect consumers from inefficient market forms, and predation by large corporations. The specific provisions of the Sherman Act, as well as the later Clayton Act of 1914, prohibit acts that are considered to be anti competitive such as cartels, monopolies, price discrimination, and predatory pricing. Mergers and acquisitions are also individually reviewed to ensure they won 't have an anti competitive effect on the market. We will look at each of these acts to try to determine their actual impact to the consumer. We will also

Through the course of this paper I will introduce and discuss the history of the movement towards an actively and engaged antitrust legislation. I will also identify the original and early antitrust laws and how they have influenced the economy, as we know it today. Upon the completion of this paper you will understand who was set to benefit (gain) from anti legislation and who loses under the intentions of the antitrust laws today and in the past.

We’re more than a century into the antitrust regulation the system is not yet perfect we still have a long way to go. Here in United States of America in 2014, we continue to experience the effect of market power. One example is cable services; in the community where I live my local cable company is the only one that offers Internet and cable services by not allowing competition they are able to charge a fixed price much higher than neighboring communities that have other carriers to choose from.

Congress passed an antitrust law in 1890 to help keep companies from using monopolizing business practices called the Sherman Act (“FTC,” n.d., para. 1). Two more antitrust laws were passed in 1914. The two laws were the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act (“FTC,” n.d., para. 1). These laws were put in place to protect consumers and businesses alike. Each law that has been put in place to ensure fair trade; and each one has its own pros and cons. I will be giving examples of the marginal costs and marginal benefits of Antitrust Legislation and how regulatory capture ties into the laws as well.

Antitrust laws are classical examples of adapting tendencies of government to the changing times. The history of competition act, 2002 is a good example of the proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, enacted in the era of restrictive economy found itself to be obsolete and redundant with the opening of Economy in 1991, was vacuum was filled by passage of Competition Act, 2002. Cartels are prohibited by most countries in most of the countries, whether they are domestic or foreign firms. Over the years, international cartels, which comprise firms more than in one country were considered to be illegal,

Per-se illegality and the rule of reason are two approached commonly used to evaluate the legality of agreements under competition law. The distinction between per se illegality and the rule of reason is fundamental in the U.S. for the application of Section 1 of the Sherman Act , and has been adopted in other jurisdictions. A per se violation requires no further inquiry into the actual effects of the practice on the market or the intention of individuals engaged in the practice. By contrast, under the rule of reason, in addition to proving the existence of the alleged conduct, its anti-competitive effects need to be shown to outweigh any alleged pro-competitive effects. The application of per-se rule was considered appropriate in those cases

This paper examines the nature of monopolies and the anti-trust policies developed by the government to discourage them. It specifically considers Microsoft and the case brought against it by the Federal government to prevent its becoming a software monopoly. In many cases, the government is justified in pursuing such anti-monopoly policies to protect competition and by extension the consumer. There are some instances, however, when allowing certain monopolies ensures constant supply, efficient production, and consistent regulation of products vital to the public good.

Under oligopolistic market structure, the government has a greater role as it acts as a guard to anti-competitive behaviours of the oligopolists. It is often observed that oligopolists may engage in the illegal practice of collusion, where they together make production and pricing decisions. Oligopolists may start acting as a single organisation and further increase prices and profits. Thus, in such environment, the government requires to keep a watch on such activities to curb the illegal

Oligopolies can be collusive or non-collusive. Firms may engage in strategic decision making where each firm takes explicit account of a rival’s expected response to a decision it is making

In September 2014, the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment on Groupement des Cartes-Bancaires v. European Commission. This case was initially decided on by the commission, and then appealed to the General Court of the European Union. When the General Court dismissed the appeal, it appealed to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). After hearing the opinion given by Advocate General N. Wahl (AG Wahl), the ECJ made a decision to quash the General Court’s decision. The case represented the first appeal the ECJ had overturned regarding the restriction of competition ‘by object’ of the measures at issue. It will be shown that this case is the leading authority on the dichotomy of ‘by effect’ and ‘by object’ restrictions of competition.