|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Score = 26'''
| | == Competition Statutes == |
| | | * [[United States 2007|United States 2007]] |
| ''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/ftc/legal.htm</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).
| | * [[United States 1977|United States 1977]] |
| | |
| {| 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
| |
| | 1
| |
| | RPM is generally illegal.<ref>''See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.'', 220 U.S. 373 (1911).</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 />
| |