Sherman Antitrust Act: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
ALLCAPS #article-section-source-editor
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 5:
| shorttitle = Sherman Antitrust Act
| othershorttitles =
| longtitle = An Act to Protectprotect Tradetrade and Commercecommerce Againstagainst Unlawfulunlawful Restraintsrestraints and Monopoliesmonopolies
| colloquialacronym =
| nickname =
Line 11:
| effective date =
| public law url =
| cite public law = {{uspl|51|647}}<!--{{uspl}} can be used-->
| cite statutes at large = {{usstat|26|209}}
| acts amended =
| acts repealed =
| title amended = <!--US[[Title code15 titlesof changed-->the United States Code|Title 15—Commerce and Trade]]
| sections created = <!--{{USCusc|15|1|7}} can be used-->
| sections amended =
| leghisturl =
Line 25:
| committees =
| passedbody1 = Senate
| passeddate1 = April 8, 1890
| passedvote1 = 52–1
| passedbody2 = House
| passedas2 = <!-- used if the second body changes the name of the legislation -->
| passeddate2 = June 20, 1890
| passedvote2 = unanimous vote
| conferencedate =
| passedbody3 =
Line 53:
{{Competition law}}
 
The '''Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890'''<ref>Officially re-designated as the "Sherman Act" by Congress in the [[Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act|Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976]], (Public Law 94-435, Title 3, Sec. 305(a), 90 Stat. 1383 at [[s:Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 90 Part 1.djvu/1447|p. 1397]]).</ref> ({{USStat|26|209}}, {{usc|15|1|7}}) is a [[United States antitrust law]] which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair [[Monopoly|monopolies]]. It was passed by [[United States Congress|Congress]] and is named for Senator [[John Sherman]], its principal author.
 
The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act authorizes the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] to bring [[Lawsuit|suits]] to [[enjoin]] (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for [[treble damages]] (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether the conduct unreasonably restrains trade.
 
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/sherman-anti-trust-act-and-analysis/|title=Sherman AntiTrust Act, and Analysis|date=12 March 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20111118040849/http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/sherman-anti-trust-act-and-analysis/|archive-date=18 November 2011}}</ref> "Innocent monopoly", or [[monopoly]] achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.<ref name="Cseres2005">"This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers."< {{cite book|title=Competition law and consumer protection|last=Cseres|first=Katalin Judit|year=2005|publisher=Kluwer Law International|isbn=9789041123800|pages=291–293|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y3IOROCcVacC|access-date=July 15, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512183804/http://books.google.com/books?id=y3IOROCcVacC&printsec=frontcover&cad=0|archive-date=May 12, 2013}}</ref>
 
==Background==
Line 149:
 
{{blockquote|Section 1:
:Every contract, combination in the form of [[Trust (19th century)|trust]] or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.<ref>See {{usc|15|1}}.</ref>
Section 2:
:Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felonymisdemeanor [. . . ]<ref>See {{usc|15|2}}.</ref>}}
 
====Subsequent legislation expanding its scope====
{{unreferenced section|date=July 2022}}
The [[Clayton Antitrust Act]], passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For example, as ''The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Business, Labor, and Economic History'' states, the Clayton Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mochoruk |first=James |title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Business, Labor, and Economic History |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2013 |isbn=9780199738816 |editor-last=Dubofsky |editor-first=Melvyn |location=New York |chapter=Clayton Antitrust Act}}</ref>
* "price discrimination" between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a monopoly
* "exclusive dealing" agreements
* " 'tying' " arrangements
* mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
 
Line 174:
* ''[[Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States]]'' (1911), which broke up the company based on geography, and contributed to the [[Panic of 1910–11]].
* ''[[United States v. American Tobacco Co.]]'' (1911), which split the company into four.
* ''[[United States v. General Electric Co]]'' (1911), where GE was judged to have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, along with International General Electric, [[Philips]], [[Sylvania Electric Products|Sylvania]], Tungsol, and Consolidated and Chicago Miniature. Corning and Westinghouse made consent decrees.<ref name="US v GE 1911">{{cite web |title=United States v. General Electric Co., 82 F. Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/82/753/1755675/ |website=Justia Law |access-date=15 September 2019 |language=en |date=4 April 1949}}</ref>
* ''[[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-10-00846/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-10-00846-0.pdf Fleischman vs Albany Medical Center]]'' (2010), where nurses alleged Albany Medical Center suppressed their wages in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, by sharing wage information with other area hospitals. References: (1) Casetext Fleischman vs Albany Medical Center (2) Justia Docket No. 10-0846-mv
* ''[[United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.]]'' (19171915), which ruled that the company was abusing its monopolicmonopolistic rights, and therefore, violated the Sherman act.
* ''[[Federal Baseball Club v. National League]]'' (1922) in which the Supreme Court ruled that [[Major League Baseball]] was not [[interstate commerce]] and was not subject to the antitrust law.
* ''United States v. National City Lines'' (1953), related to the [[General Motors streetcar conspiracy]].
* ''[[United States v. AT&T (1982)|United States v. AT&T Co.]]'', which was settled in 1982 and resulted in the breakup of the company.
*''[[Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n|Wilk v. American Medical Association]]'' (1990) Judge Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in [[restraint of trade]] "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession."
* ''[[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|United States v. Microsoft Corp.]]'' was settled in 2001 without the breakup of the company.
Line 315:
; Official websites
* [http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ U.S. Department of Justice: Antitrust Division]
* [https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/761131/download U.S. Department of Justice: Antitrust Division – text of SHERMANthe ANTITRUSTSherman ACTAntitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7]
 
;Additional information
* Antitrust Division's [http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/lencorp.htm "Corporate Leniency Policy"]
* [http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1605:antitrust-by-alan-greenspan&catid=47:1998&Itemid=31 ''Antitrust''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140511002404/http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1605:antitrust-by-alan-greenspan&catid=47:1998&Itemid=31 |date=May 11, 2014 }} by [[Alan Greenspan]]
* "Labor and the Sherman Act" (1940). ''[[Yale Law Journal]]'' 49(3) p.&nbsp;518. {{JSTOR|792668}}.
* Dr. Edward W. Younkins (February 19, 2000). [http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000219-13.htm "Antitrust Laws Should Be Abolished"].