Changes

==The History of Antitrust law==

==The History of Antitrust law==

===English law===

===English law===

One of the earliest significant antitrust cases was that of ''Darcy v. Allein'' [The Case of Monopolies], 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (K.B. 1603), in which a court of England voided a grant by [[Queen Elizabeth]] 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. An earlier case reports an action by Parliament resulting in the brief imprisonment John Pecche for the purported abuse of "a patent giving him the exclusive right to sell sweet wines at retail in London." 50 Edw. III, No. 33 (1376).

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.  

 

 

 

:For we read in [[Justinian I|Justinian]] that monopolies are not to be meddled with, because they do not conduce to the benefit of the common weal but to its ruin and damage. The civil Laws forbid monopolies: in the chapter of monopolies, one and the same Law. The [[Emperor Zeno]] ordained that those practicing monopolies should be deprived of all their goods. Zeno added that even imperial [p]rescripts were not to be accepted if they granted monopolies to anyone.

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) [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>

secret rebate deals with railroads to build a monopoly in the oil business. A federal criminal lawsuit alleged the illegal rebates continued after 1900. In 1911 the Supreme Court upheld the court decision against Standard Oil and broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that eventually competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and Exxon-Mobil), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), of New York (Mobil), of California (Chevron), and so on.  

secret rebate deals with railroads to build a monopoly in the oil business. A federal criminal lawsuit alleged the illegal rebates continued after 1900. In 1911 the Supreme Court upheld the court decision against Standard Oil and broke the monopoly into three dozen separate companies that eventually competed with one another, including Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon and Exxon-Mobil), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco), of New York (Mobil), of California (Chevron), and so on.  

In approving the breakup of Standard Oil the Supreme Court added the "rule of reason": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil. They had to somehow damage the economic environment of their competitors.  Roosevelt for his part distinguished between "good trusts"--which built the world's greatest economy--and bad ones which preyed on smaller fry.  Thus U.S. Steel Corporation, which was much larger than Standard Oil, won its antitrust suit in 1920 because it provedin court that it was well behaved.  Labor unions, whose use of boycotts and strikes was banned by courts as a restraint of trade, hated the original Sherman Act; they were given relief in the Clayton Act of 1914.   

In approving the breakup of Standard Oil the Supreme Court added the "[[Rule of reason]]": not all big companies, and not all monopolies, are evil. They had to somehow damage the economic environment of their competitors.  Roosevelt for his part distinguished between "good trusts"--which built the world's greatest economy--and bad ones which preyed on smaller fry.  Thus U.S. Steel Corporation, which was much larger than Standard Oil, won its antitrust suit in 1920 because it provedin court that it was well behaved.  Labor unions, whose use of boycotts and strikes was banned by courts as a restraint of trade, hated the original Sherman Act; they were given relief in the Clayton Act of 1914.   

The biggest problem under Sherman was that businessmen did not know what was allowed and what was not. Therefore in 1914 Congress set up the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which defined anti-competitive behavior, and provided an alternative mechanism to police anti-trust.  

The biggest problem under Sherman was that businessmen did not know what was allowed and what was not. Therefore in 1914 Congress set up the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which defined anti-competitive behavior, and provided an alternative mechanism to police anti-trust.  

* Jones, Clifford A. ''Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK, and USA'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37110894 online edition]

* Jones, Clifford A. ''Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK, and USA'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37110894 online edition]

* Sauter, Wolf. ''Competition Law and Industrial Policy in the EU'' (1997) 262 pgs. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?=o&d=49495544 online edition]

* Sauter, Wolf. ''Competition Law and Industrial Policy in the EU'' (1997) 262 pgs. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?=o&d=49495544 online edition]

[[Category:United States Law]]

[[Category:United States Law]]

[[Category:Business]]

[[Category:Business]]

[[Category:Economic history]]

[[Category:Economic history]]