About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Monopoly and Monopolization - Fundamental But Separate Concepts in U.S. Antitrust Law , Record No.: RS20241, Date: June 28, 1999 1 (June 28, 1999)

handle is hein.tera/crser0057 and id is 1 raw text is: Order Code RS20241 Updated June 28, 1999 Monopoly and Monopolization - Fundamental But Separate Concepts in U.S. Antitrust Law Janice E. Rubin Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary 1 Under Rule of Reason analysis the anticompetitive results of a transaction will, in all but the few instances involving per se violations of the antitrust laws (e.g., price fixing, boycotts), be balanced against any procompetitive effects that might be produced. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). Congressional Research Service -+* The Library of Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Antitrust doctrine holds that viable competition will best protect consumers; it is only concerned with the viability of individual competitors insofar as their fates affect marketplace competitiveness. Moreover, the Rule of Reason1 generally modified competition with reasonable. Viewed in the context of the Rule of Reason, the general prohibitions against monopolization and attempted monopolization contained in section 2 of the Sherman Act and against monopolization in section 7 of the Clayton Act, and the unlawfulness of unfair acts in commerce under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, require two things: first, an inquiry into whether an entity is in fact a monopolist; and second, whether that monopolist has unlawfully monopolized the market(s) within which it operates (the applicable, relevant market, which may be either product- or geographically based, or both). This Report will attempt to clarify the difference between the concepts of monopoly and monopolization; and will touch on the monopoly/monopolization thinking in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as illustrated in (1) statements on merger enforcement made by current antitrust enforcement officials, since such expressions are generally indicative of the agencies' concerns about competitive conditions and the effect of various market transactions, (2) the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and (3) some observations on the Government actions against the Microsoft and Intel Corporations.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most