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

Many utilities are monopolies by having the entire market share in certain areas. With deregulation of these utilities, the market becomes open to competition for market share to begin. In terms of regulation of monopoly, the government attempts to prevent operations that are against the public interest, call anti-competitive practices. Likewise, oligopoly is a market condition where there are minimal distributors that have a major influence on prices and other market factors. This causes market failure, especially if evidence of collusive behavior by dominant businesses is found.

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.

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 first part of this paper attempts to answer these questions whilst deliberating on the majority and minority judgements of the US Supreme Court in Leegin and the significance of the decision for US federal antitrust law. The second part of this paper compares the US Federal and EU approaches to RPM.

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,

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.

Competition is considered beneficial for business and business environment, as in a competitive market, companies offer higher quality products at lower prices to be successful or to gain market share. On the other hand, businesses perhaps get involve in violation of antitrust laws that is a white collar crime as it has a bad effect on competition, can damage economy and can increase prices. Antitrust laws are formed to protect consumer and competitors from unfair competition and its consequences, these laws prohibits: conspiracies, combinations and contracts in trade restraint, mergers, and acquisitions that tend to significantly reduce the competition offenses and methods of unfair competition, as well as unfair practices and acts in the conduct of commerce and trade (Kovacic et al, 2007).

Antitrust policies are mot harmful to society than they are helpful. The Antitrust laws that were apparently focused on the restriction of monopolies for the safeguarding public welfare and just prices have instead been used by the government in ways that are more harmful to consumers than beneficial. More often than not, these laws obstruct innovation and impede competition and free trade. The main purpose of the laws is to ensure that large corporations do not take advantage of consumers, but in the process of maintaining this order, the government may be restricting companies that have the potential of being beneficial for society with fair prices in the long run. The Antitrust Acts can be seen as more of an effort to maintain and “keep the doors open” of businesses that otherwise would not be able to withstand the competition of more efficient businesses. Therefore, they can be seen more of a restriction on the development of

The U.S. Department of justice has many ongoing activities to stop and prevent monopolies from creating an unfair market power while protecting the interest of the consumers. The government regulates monopolies to prevent prices from being excessive, quality of service, Monopsony power, to promote competition and control natural monopolies. The government regulates monopolies by price capping, regulation of quality of service, merger policy, breaking up monopoly, rate of return regulation and investigation of abuse of monopoly power. The government’s main purpose is to maintain equity and fairness in all markets of business. Two current activities that the Department of Justice is currently involved in are.

Now for some time their have been laws called “Competition laws” which often forbid private cartels to operate because most of this cases are

Review Article on the purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect and support free competition

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.

This paper presents a description of market structure in which the bearing companies operate in Europe, possible environment that led to collusive behavior, incentives for companies that led them to participate in cartel and resulting welfare from it. Moreover, the paper also presents an assessment of Government intervention with costs and benefits analysis and its effects to all stakeholders. Through this assessment, an argument is carried out on the appropriateness of

In cases where violations of rules competition for each country, the situation usually deal with the national competition authorities. However, enlargement of the internal market and globalization, the impact of any illegal practices, such as cartels, are usually felt many other countries within and outside the Union. The Commission normally has adequate means to handle