<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=United_States_1970</id>
	<title>United States 1970 - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=United_States_1970"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=United_States_1970&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-04-22T16:49:29Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=United_States_1970&amp;diff=957&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>JWSchneider: New page: &#039;&#039;&#039;Score = 26&#039;&#039;&#039;  &#039;&#039;Governed by:&#039;&#039; Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7&lt;ref&gt;Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; (hereina...</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=United_States_1970&amp;diff=957&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2007-07-18T21:32:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;New page: &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Score = 26&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Governed by:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (hereina...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Score = 26&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Governed by:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Trade Commission website, http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/about.shtm; Link to statute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Scope&lt;br /&gt;
| Extraterritoriality&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| The effects doctrine says that US antitrust law applies to anything that has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on US trade and commerce.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Remedies&lt;br /&gt;
| Fines&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Prison Sentences&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Divestitures&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Courts are permitted to order divestiture of assets in certain situations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;FTAA report, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Private Enforcement&lt;br /&gt;
| 3rd Party Initiation&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §4 of the Clayton Act allows 3rd parties to initiate proceedings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §4 of the Clayton Act allows anybody who has been injured to file a case for damages in district court.&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Merger Notification&lt;br /&gt;
| Voluntary&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Mandatory&lt;br /&gt;
| 3&lt;br /&gt;
| Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Pre-merger&lt;br /&gt;
| 2&lt;br /&gt;
| Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Post-merger&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Merger Assessment&lt;br /&gt;
| Dominance&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that create a monopoly.&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Restriction of Competition&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that substantially lessen competition.&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Public Interest (Pro D)&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Other&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Efficiency&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Courts have recognized a limited efficiency defense.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See F.T.C. v. Staples&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Dominance&lt;br /&gt;
| Limits Access&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| The court prohibits dominant firms that gain control over a cost reducing essential facility from taking exclusive access in order to ruin a competitor.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See Gamco, Inc.  v. Providence Fruit &amp;amp; Produce Bldg&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 194 F.2d 484 (1st Cir.1952).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Abusive Acts&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §2 of the Sherman Act prohibits abusing a monopoly position.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Price Setting&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Discriminatory Pricing&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| §2 of the Clayton Act prohibits discriminatory pricing.&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Resale Price Maintenance&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| RPM is generally illegal.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park &amp;amp; Sons Co.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 220 U.S. 373 (1911).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Obstacles to Entry&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Courts have looked at whether there existed barriers to entry in order to decide whether an action violated §2 of the Sherman Act.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See U.S. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 524 F. Supp. 1336 (D.C.D.C. 1981).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Efficiency Defense&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|- class=&amp;quot;categorydivision&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| Restrictive Trade Practices&lt;br /&gt;
| Price Fixing&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Price fixing agreements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act by the courts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See Stewart &amp;amp; Stevenson Services, Inc.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 56 FTC 523.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Tying&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Tying arrangements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act and §3 of the Clayton Act.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;aff’d per curiam&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 365 U.S. 567 (1961).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Market Division&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Territorial allocation has been interpreted as “an aggregation of trade restraints.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See United States v. Sealy&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 388 U.S. 350 (1967).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Output Restraint&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Agreements to restrict competition and decrease output are interpreted as illegal.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Co.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 441 U.S. 1, 20 (1979).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Market Sharing&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| The courts have interpreted market sharing as illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Eliminating Competitors&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| The purpose of §2 of the Sherman Act is to thwart agreements meant to eliminate a competitor.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See McIntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co. of Philadelphia&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 151 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1945).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| The court has found that bid rigging schemes can impair competition.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See Stolow v. Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 258 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Supply Refusal&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Group boycotts violate the Sherman Act and the FTC Act.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;See In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Efficiency Defense&lt;br /&gt;
| 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.&lt;br /&gt;
		&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references /&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>JWSchneider</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>