Talk:United States antitrust law/Archives/2013

Expansion

The article requires general expansion and more content from non-U.S. perspectives. Also, is there criticism which culminates in more than the concern that competition law discourages "businessmen" from being productive for society? 203.198.237.30 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The external links are almost exclusively critical of antitrust law. Some references to articles and sources supporting antitrust laws would be helpful.

What about Walter Eucken in the context of competition policy? He was an intresting non-US thinker in the world of economics.

Regarding non-U.S. perspectives: As the term "anti-trust" is a U.S. legal term, how much relevance do non-US perspective have here vs. a broader "competition law" article?

Friedman

Why mention of Friedman? A balanced summary of arguments on behalf of advocates and detractors would be in order, with some practical examples... as a combined business cooperation

The definition of antitrust laws should be first, then the history with some examples and links for further ones. -Then- it would be appropriate to visit popular arguments regarding the issue of antitrust.

Schuyler Hupp Austin, Tx

Milton Friedman is a generalist economist and does not have a specific claim to a role in the evolution of Antitrust. More relevant would be Aaron Director or legal economists such as Richard Posner or Robert Bork. Just about every economist of the 20th Century has had something to say about antitrust, and Milton Friedman does not stand out from among this brethren on this particular issue.

Bob99 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfair competition

Currently Unfair competition redirects to Antitrust.

Yet there is much more to unfair competition:

see http://www.rppi.org/htg18.pdf

Paleorthid 02:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. Unfair competition has some overlap with antitrust laws, but overall it is a much broader and diverse (especially on the state level) legal remedy. --David.rand 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

update

I noticed that there is still no article on unfair competition. That is unfortunate because of the growing importance of this area of the law.Kitteneatkitten 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a strong Milton supporter, I urge anyone that can logicaly argue with his ideas to post here!

Biased

I seriously doubt the neutrality of DrThompson's overhaul of the "Criticism of Antitrust" section (renamed "The Deceit of Antitrust", which is an obviously biased title itself). Whether the information is accurate or not (taken from Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History), the criticism of antitrust should be presented in a neutral and objective manner, not sound like an op-ed piece. Phoenix-forgotten 19:17, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

The second line is also biased or misleading. "Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace." It isn't clear that it was intended lower prices to consumers through competition. Encourage competition likely meant more competition among buyers for producers goods, raising producers selling prices and consumer's prices. The laws also served as a club to beat competitors with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.13.118 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the POV tag because the thought my changes eliminated this problem If someone still think it lack NPOV, go ahead and replace the tag and explain your reasoning here. The major problem that I saw was the criticism of antitrust law was dropped in random places and presented as fact. I moved some of it to the criticism section and eliminated other parts that were duplicated in the criticism section.

On that point, I think a defect of the criticism section is that it only presents the more extreme "all antirust law is bad" POV rather than the more common criticism that much enforcement of anitrust law is excessive and the laws should be both scaled back and more clearly written. Finally there is the point of view that modern antitrust law is too weak, a view not expressed anywhere in the critism section. Kitteneatkitten 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it the article still has considerable problems with NPOV. (I say that despite the fact I often agree wih the viewpoint!)

Examples:

Roosevelt for his part distinguished between "good trusts" and bad ones allegedly on the basis of their contribution to the economy. Such arbitrariness gives business leaders reason to believe that they will be prosecuted if they do not cultivate political support for their business.

One problem under the Sherman Act was that businessmen did not know what was allowed or not. Therefore in 1914 Congress passed the Clayton Act which prohibited specific business actions (such as price discrimination, tie-in sales, exclusive dealership agreements, mergers, acquisitions, and interlocking corporate directorships) if they substantially lessened competition. At the same time Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose legal and business experts could force business to agree to "consent decrees" which provided an alternative mechanism to police anti-trust. However the law is still very unclear. For instance there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "market". In the words of Isabel Paterson "As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid.".

Both are worthy criticisms, and important to understanding the controversy around the Sherman Act, but the first is clearly in opposition to Roosevelt's POV; the second adopts Isabel Paterson's point of view. Both take the view that the burden on business is excessive. A NPOV would acknowledge the issue without taking the side.

Suggested rewrites:

Roosevelt for his part distinguished between "good trusts" and bad ones allegedly on the basis of their contribution to the economy. As a result, many business leaders have expressed concern that they will be prosecuted if they do not cultivate political support for their business.

Businessmen have frequently complained that the Sherman Act did not make clear what was allowed or not. In response, Congress passed the Clayton Act in 1914 which prohibited specific business actions (such as price discrimination, tie-in sales, exclusive dealership agreements, mergers, acquisitions, and interlocking corporate directorships) if they substantially lessened competition. At the same time Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose legal and business experts could force business to agree to "consent decrees" which provided an alternative mechanism to police anti-trust. However businessmen continue to complain the law is still very unclear. For instance that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "market". In the words of Isabel Paterson "As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid.".

However, I'm still concerned about Wikipedia:Verifiability. Probably these assertions are verifiable, and it's probably more important to get the NPOV than strict verifiability. Bob Kerns 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also concerning that no mention is made of reduced (I believe almost non-existent) enforcement in recent years. Whether you view this as a good thing or a bad thing -- in the context of an article highly critical of the act, it has the effect of enhancing the critisisms by exaggerating the current impact. A more balanced approach would make mention of this -- it also helps with verifiability of some of the positions, since it would seem some of the current administration hold the positions. And mentioning that the administration has been criticised for lack of enforcement would do much to restore NPOV. There is almost no mention in the article that the opinions stated are not universally held as fact. Bob Kerns 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly is no salvation, it makes no difference in meaning or in force; what you need are real secondary sources; histories of economics in this case. These criticisms are scarcely original with Friedman or Greenspan; some of them were made to Sherman; and the answers given should also be included. You should also include the other class of criticisms associated with Thurman Arnold. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I just didn't know enough to suggest a fix for that part. Bob Kerns (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale Section

In my revision of this article I did not do much to this section. The beginning of the article already discusses the rationale of antitrust law. Moreover, the section is not very informative and not clearly written. Therefore I suggest that this section be eliminated and the rationale for antitrust laws be more fulling discussed in the introduction. I would like others opinions before doing this. Kitteneatkitten 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article is more balanced than most on Wikipedia by far, I think it's just a touchy concept and people are unwilling to see the other side. Remember guys, quoting people doesn't show a non-neutral point of view, or rather if it does it doesn't provide a bad non-neutral point of view but a perspective. I'm not confident enough a guy to remove the tag but does it really need to be there? Elomis 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you notice, I didn't object to the quotes! Rather, statements about it being arbitrary, etc. etc. And you'll notice that I generally favor the position being taken, and I still am objecting to the lack of NPOV. If you'll read my suggested changes above, would you not agree they're an improvement? The information about the issues can be conveyed without the point-of-view. Can, and should. Bob Kerns 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What i read doesn't appear to be npov TheWorldWideWeb 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Antitrust" is almost exclusively a U.S. term, historically derived from the trust (19th century) which inspired the oldest of these laws, the Sherman Antitrust Act; the correct international term is "competition law" (as in the EU). Most Americans don't realize this because U.S. news media routinely changes "competition law" to "antitrust law" in news articles for U.S. consumption.

(As far as the NPOV issues, perhaps your problem is with the whole concept of competition or antitrust law; some conservatives think the whole idea is too paternalistic and aimed solely at punishing "big business". Sounds too much like Fox News' warped idea of "fair and balanced" to me.) --RBBrittain 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Foreigners can read up on "competition law" on their native-language wikipedias, but whatever the most literal translation of their terms into English might be, "antitrust" is the predominant term for native English speakers. --Groggy Dice T|C 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - What about English-speaking countries other than the US? As far as I'm aware, "antitrust" isn't a commonly used term here in the UK. PC78 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - this appears to be an ugly situation where one term is used exclusively in the US, and the other is used exclusively outside the US (I've never heard to it referred to as anything but antitrust). I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this, but I'm not sure there will be an easy answer: just see this beauty if you don't believe me. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Well, one kludge might be to make the current article about antitrust law in the US exclusively, and cover the subject at an international level at "competition law." --Groggy Dice T | C 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*Support per nom & WP:CSB. - Cyrus XIII 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - there's also a policy about not changing American and British uses back and forth, which in this case works in favor of the current name. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Would you kindly provide a link to this policy? I'd very much like to read it. - Cyrus XIII 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Disputes_over_style_issues. The general consensus is that if the article is about a British or American subject, then the style remains for that community (e.g., George W. Bush gets American spelling, etc.). Otherwise, whoever wrote the article first, that stays. See also {{Uw-engvar}}, {{Uw-disruptive2}}, {{Uw-disruptive3}}, {{Uw-vandalism4}}, and {. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per MoS; which also says if it's been stable at Antitrust, which it has, leave it there. The idea of using this as a line for American v. Commonwealth/European articles makes sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the issue is much more than current law, it's a HISTORICAL topic with a very long and deep history in USA of over 100 years, always with the term "antitrust". Rjensen 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the move but I support Groggy's idea of splitting the article with Antitrust for the US history and use and Competition Law for an overview of the law's concept and application international. 205.157.110.11 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I would agree to a parallel articles approach as well. - Cyrus XIII 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

I would like to note here, that this discussion seemed to be about whether to rename the current page and call it competition law. That would have been a bit silly, since the page is entirely about US antitrust law theory and practice, referenced solely from US sources and books. What I do suggest however is that the page be moved to be called "United States antitrust law" because it is about the US and antitrust is also about law. Wikidea 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to discussion of prohibited conduct

I have been a practicing antitrust lawyer for more than 15 years. I revised the discussion of anticompetitive conduct because it included a lot of information that was, quite simply, wrong. I deleted tying from the list of prohibited practices. While there is a prohibited practice known as tying, the text described bundling rather than tying. Tying is a subset of bundling where the seller has monopoly power in the "tying" product. While the label "per se" is applied to tying, this is arguably inaccurate because proof of monopoly power in this context is almost indistinguishable from proving a case under the rule of reason. As understood in the literature, there are very few cases in which tying would be found to have occurred. Bundling, by contrast, is selling two products together. This is okay as long as there is no demonstrable anticompetitive effect. I also deleted all but two of the entries from the list of antitrust exemptions because the information was wrong. None of the deleted areas is exempt from antitrust scrutiny, though in some cases there may be partial exemptions under specific circumstances defined by statute. In other cases, antitrust scrutiny may be limited to scrutiny by specific agencies of the U.S. government. Bob99 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also changed removed "vendor lock-in" from the list of practices subject to antitrust scrutiny. It would require narrowly defined circumstances in which economic effects could be demonstrated that such a practice would be found unlawful under U.S. antitrust laws.

Bob99 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I removed predatory pricing from the list of prohibited practices. As the Predatory Pricing article suggest, this area of law has become very tightly constrained, and these cases are rare.

Bob99 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to get someone's opinion on this before changing it: "Conduct falls within the scope of this prohibition only if some form of agreement or concerted action can be proven."

My understanding of "concerted action" is that it is now a term of art. I don't think that we should use it in that sentence because, as written, it strongly implies that tacit collusion is prohibited conduct. Tacit collustion is when two companies act similarly without an actual agreement (e.g. if I raise prices because I see my only competitor raising prices) . Since tacit collusion is not illegal, I propose that we either reword the sentence or define "concerted action".

Article neutrality

I am removing the neutrality doubt tag, because I don't think it is bias. No one has been complaining or arguing about the content for a while. It's a good and relatively well referenced article on the U.S. position. Wikidea 10:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article still has the one-sided problems I complained about a year ago. It's also infused with original research and is abysmally organized. It needs a total rewrite. THF (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New Competition law page

I have replaced the old redirect from "Competition law" that went to this page, with a proper outline of the history, theory and practice of competition law from a global perspective. I just need a little more time to finish the bottom sections, but thought would post something here before I finish. I suggested above renaming this page "United States antitrust law" because that's what it is on here. I'd be glad to hear people's thoughts, in case there are strong opinions like the ones above. Reading the page in more detail today though, perhaps this could be shaped up a little, with more of the substantive case law (e.g. where's anything about Illinois Brick?) and the history being reworded. As I said before though, good article. Wikidea 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I've moved the page to "united states antitrust law" as I suggested above, because everyone seemed content with that. As I wrote, it's probably better to specify which country this page is dealing with, even though the States is the place where the "antitrust" terminology is used. I think even states within the US themselves have their own antitrust/competition laws, so its worth it to show that the antitrust talked about in this article is at the Federal level. Wikidea 11:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Antitrust Placement

Am I the only one who thinks that its strange to have a history section that's located towards the end of the article? I tried playing with it a little bit, but that section is so big and disorganized that it ruins the entire article if its moved up. I propose that we trim this section down to focus solely on the historical milestones and move it up towards the beginning of the article (I wanted to get a consensus before I did a major rewrite). Idag (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, What's going on between 1930-1970? Till 1930, evolution is depicted quite well in every decade

I don't see the sequence, as it stands, as odd or bad at all. This is a busy area of law, and as many things do, it has both an important current reality and an interesting history. With most articles, we say what the thing is, how it differs from similar things, why it is important, how it works, and how it got this way, in approximately that sequence. In this case the topic has an interesting history which is poorly presented in the section as it stands, but when even improved (shrunk, if that's a good way to improve it) the history still doesn't belong in front of other questions such as why it is currently important and how it currently works. Anyway if is made better, that's more important than a proper location of the history section. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

This article has an OR tag dated 2001, but it is not clear what part of the text is at issue. Should the tag be removed? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs law

It seems the page needs some work to put in some more law on the issues. There's around 80 Wikipedia case pages, most of which are probably fit for being summarised here. Wikidea 12:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)