Changes

One of the earliest significant antitrust cases was that of ''Darcy v. Allein'',<ref>("The Case of Monopolies"), 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (K.B. 1603)</ref> in which a court of England voided a grant by [[Queen Elizabeth I]] purporting to give the appellant a monopoly over the importation and sale of playing cards throughout England. The ''Darcy'' court found the grant to be against public policy for reasons including the likelihood that the monopolist would be inclined to rest on a shoddy product, and that others in the business of making playing cards would be unfairly rendered unemployed.  

One of the earliest significant antitrust cases was that of ''Darcy v. Allein'',<ref>("The Case of Monopolies"), 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (K.B. 1603)</ref> in which a court of England voided a grant by [[Queen Elizabeth I]] purporting to give the appellant a monopoly over the importation and sale of playing cards throughout England. The ''Darcy'' court found the grant to be against public policy for reasons including the likelihood that the monopolist would be inclined to rest on a shoddy product, and that others in the business of making playing cards would be unfairly rendered unemployed.  

England enacted a statutory prohibition on monopolies in 1624<ref>"An Act Concerning Monopolies and Dispensations of Penal Laws and the Forfeitures Thereof" "Statute of Monopolies", 1624, 21 Jam., ch. 3 (Eng.)</ref> American states enacted individual prohibitions against monopolies as early as 1641, with the Massachusetts Bay Colony stating that "there shall be no monopolies granted or allowed among us but of such new inventions as are profitable to the country, and that for a short time".<ref>Victor Selden Clark, ''History of Manufactures in the United States ...: 1607-1860'' (1916) [http://books.google.com/books?id=x-EMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA47&dq=%22allowed+among+us+but+of+such+new+inventions+as+are+profitable+to+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22allowed%20among%20us%20but%20of%20such%20new%20inventions%20as%20are%20profitable%20to%20%22&f=false vol 1 p 47 online]</ref>

England enacted a statutory prohibition on monopolies in 1624<ref>"An Act Concerning Monopolies and Dispensations of Penal Laws and the Forfeitures Thereof" "Statute of Monopolies", 1624, 21 Jam., ch. 3 (Eng.)</ref> American states enacted individual prohibitions against monopolies as early as 1641, with the Massachusetts Bay Colony stating that "there shall be no monopolies granted or allowed among us but of such new inventions as are profitable to the country, and that for a short time".<ref>Victor Selden Clark, ''History of Manufactures in the United States ...: 1607-1860'' (1916) [https://books.google.com/books?id=x-EMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA47&dq=%22allowed+among+us+but+of+such+new+inventions+as+are+profitable+to+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22allowed%20among%20us%20but%20of%20such%20new%20inventions%20as%20are%20profitable%20to%20%22&f=false vol 1 p 47 online]</ref>

==Antitrust Policy in the United States==

==Antitrust Policy in the United States==

The main purpose of antitrust laws is to reinforce and protect the core [[Republicanism, U.S.|republican values]] regarding free enterprise in America.  Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing or retailing company of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. (Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.)  Republicanism required free competition, and the opportunity for Americans to pursue their own business without being crushed by an economic colossus.  As Senator John Sherman put it, "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a

The main purpose of antitrust laws is to reinforce and protect the core [[Republicanism, U.S.|republican values]] regarding free enterprise in America.  Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing or retailing company of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. (Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.)  Republicanism required free competition, and the opportunity for Americans to pursue their own business without being crushed by an economic colossus.  As Senator John Sherman put it, "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a