Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Srich32977 (talk | contribs) ALLCAPS #article-section-source-editor Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
| shorttitle = Sherman Antitrust Act
| othershorttitles =
| longtitle = An Act to
| 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| acts repealed =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 =
| sections created =
| sections amended =
| leghisturl =
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
==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.
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
====Subsequent legislation expanding its scope====
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.
* ''
* ''[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.]]'' (
* ''[[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
;Additional information
|