United States 2007 - Revision history

AchalOza at 14:02, 12 October 2007

2007-10-12T14:02:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 12 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Score = 25'''		'''Score = 24'''

	''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).		''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).

AchalOza at 14:01, 12 October 2007

2007-10-12T14:01:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 12 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Score = 26'''		'''Score = 25'''

	''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).		''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).

JWSchneider at 01:33, 21 August 2007

2007-08-21T01:33:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, 21 August 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Score = 25'''		'''Score = 26'''

	''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).		''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).
Line 100:		Line 100:
	\|		\|
	\| Other		\| Other
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| Business failure is considered by the ''Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States'' decision.<ref>''Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States'', 370 U.S. 294 (1962)</ref>

	\|-		\|-

JWSchneider: New page: '''Score = 25''' ''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf (hereina...

2007-07-19T16:25:17Z

New page: '''Score = 25''' ''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereina...

New page

'''Score = 25'''

''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>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</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| 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.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| Courts are permitted to order divestiture of assets in certain situations.<ref>FTAA report, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp</ref>

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 1
| §4 of the Clayton Act allows 3rd parties to initiate proceedings.

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 1
| §4 of the Clayton Act allows anybody who has been injured to file a case for damages in district court.

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 1
| §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that create a monopoly.

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that substantially lessen competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| Courts have recognized a limited efficiency defense.<ref>''See F.T.C. v. Staples'', 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997).</ref>

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| The court prohibits dominant firms that gain control over a cost reducing essential facility from taking exclusive access in order to ruin a competitor.<ref>''See Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg'', 194 F.2d 484 (1st Cir.1952).</ref>

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| §2 of the Sherman Act prohibits abusing a monopoly position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 0
|

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| §2 of the Clayton Act prohibits discriminatory pricing.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
| RPM is no longer per se illegal in the United States. Rather, courts will take a "rule of reason" approach to these abuses - essentially making most RPM legal.<ref>'' See Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.'', Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).</ref>

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 1
| Courts have looked at whether there existed barriers to entry in order to decide whether an action violated §2 of the Sherman Act.<ref>''See U.S. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.'', 524 F. Supp. 1336 (D.C.D.C. 1981).</ref>

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 1
| Price fixing agreements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act by the courts.<ref>''See Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.'', 56 FTC 523.</ref>

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| Tying arrangements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act and §3 of the Clayton Act.<ref>''See United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp.'', 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960), ''aff’d per curiam'', 365 U.S. 567 (1961).</ref>

|-
|
| Market Division
| 1
| Territorial allocation has been interpreted as “an aggregation of trade restraints.”<ref>''See United States v. Sealy'', 388 U.S. 350 (1967).</ref>

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| Agreements to restrict competition and decrease output are interpreted as illegal.<ref>''See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Co.'', 441 U.S. 1, 20 (1979).</ref>

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 1
| The courts have interpreted market sharing as illegal.

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| The purpose of §2 of the Sherman Act is to thwart agreements meant to eliminate a competitor.<ref>''See McIntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co. of Philadelphia'', 151 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1945).</ref>

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| The court has found that bid rigging schemes can impair competition.<ref>''See Stolow v. Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.'', 258 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).</ref>

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| Group boycotts violate the Sherman Act and the FTC Act.<ref>''See In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation'', 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004).</ref>

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.

|}

== References ==
<references />