Search

The article discusess criminal antitrust law of the U.S.; and includes elements of a criminal antitrust violation under Sherman Act of 1890; penalties for criminal violations; and analysis of immunity, petitioning foreign and commerce defenses related to the same.

The article focuses on the criminal antitrust law with the elements of a criminal antitrust violation under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Topics discussed include several defenses to antitrust claims with federal, state, and international enforcement, penalties for criminal violations and Sherman Act protects free-market competition by prohibiting every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade.

The article examines need of modification of the traditional dichotomous approach of quick look which courts embraced on issues related to Antitrust Law in the U.S. Topics discussed include the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case 'Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States;' ways in which quick look reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the cost of implementing per se liability; and need of private, administrative, and judicial investments to implement the quick look.

The article discusses the elements of a criminal antitrust violation under the section one of the Sherman Act. Topics discussed include the U.S. Supreme Court comparison of the generality and adaptability of the Act, criminal and civil violations of the Act, and the U.S. congress' expectation from the courts to give shape to the section's broad language by creating a common law of antitrust.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's determination that empirical models and their estimations or predictions are not "findings of fact" which deserve judicial deference during the appellate stage of litigation in America, and it mentions U.S. evidence laws and the legal aspects of scientific and theoretical models. U.S. antitrust law models are examined, along with legal cases such as Comcast Corp. v. Behrend which deals with econometric models and "clear error" reviews on appeal.

The article discusses various legal aspects of the monopolization of a market through patent theft and fraud, focusing on antitrust immunity, the encouragement of investments in research and development (R&D), and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A patent holder's exclusionary rights are mentioned, along with patent applicants and violations of the U.S. Sherman Act. Price competition and the U.S. patent law case Brunswick Corp. v. Riegel Textile Corp. are examined.