Search

Comments on reciprocal dealing and the antitrust laws. Definition of Reciprocal dealing as both the use of purchasing power to obtain sales and the practice of preferring one's customers in purchasing. Widespread practice of reciprocal dealing; Economic effects of reciprocal dealing; Implications of antitrust; Application of existing statutes related to reciprocal dealing; Need for new legislation.

Examines the role of state law in federal antitrust treble damage actions in the U.S. Analysis of the decisional law; Considerations in choosing between state and federal law; Criteria for making the choice which may be particularly applicable to antitrust statutes.

Examines the definition of agreement under the Sherman Act in the U.S. focusing on the provisions relating to conscious parallelism and refusals to deal in trade and commerce. Antitrust and illegality issues; Existence of an agreement to restrain trade; Desirability of an inclusive concept of agreement; Antitrust law. OF AMERICANS

Discusses the competitive amendment in the antitrust law under the Robinson-Patman Act. Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act; Problems of interpretation; Social benefits of profit-maximizing discrimination; Second Circuit's ruling that a price reduction by the American Tobacco Co. in Puerto Rico was a violation of the law.

Focuses on the extra territorial application of the antitrust laws. Details of the "United States V. Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd.," an antitrust suit brought against Du Pont; View of the foreign elements involved in particular activities; Contention of the advocates of a strict territorial concept of international law that the antitrust statutes should be construed as applicable only to those violations occurring within the United States.

The article reports that when action of a patentee who seeks to extend the powers derived from his patent beyond those of the grant is challenged as a violation of the federal antitrust laws, uncertainty may exist as to the appropriate test of legality. Thus, it may be doubtful whether the fact that a patentee has abused his grant will itself be a basis for condemning the practice as illegal per se under the antitrust laws, or whether further inquiry is required under the general antitrust doctrines of illegality per se or the Rule of Reason. Combined with fears that the incidents of patent grants are being narrowed, this uncertainty may force prudent patentees to narrow their exploitation to an area well short of the currently conceived limits of their grants because of the possible drastic consequences of slightly overstepping the patent.

This article focuses on the current status of the monopoly problem in the U.S. There have always been at least two ways of looking at competition and of judging the effectiveness of competition in a particular market. In the first, competition is thought of as a type of market organization setting severe limits to the power or control exercised by the individual firm. This view stresses the limits, set principally by the number of his competitors, on the scope of action of a single seller or buyer. The relation of monopoly and competition to innovation is a relatively unknown area.

Provides information on the Act of the U.S. Congress of July 2, 1890, entitled "An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies. Prohibitions of the Act; Classification of the cases arising under the law; Provisions of the Act on the monopolizing of the manufacture or of the ownership of articles of trade or commerce.

The article presents information on some of the recent court cases related to commercial law in the U.S. The tremendous increase in recent years in the importance and scope of cooperative marketing associations has brought to the fore questions of their legality as combinations in restraint of trade, or as organizations tending toward monopoly. At the early common law, any contract in restraint of trade was regarded as void. But changing economic conditions led to altered legal conceptions under the federal and state anti-trust laws, it seems that monopoly or restraint are objectionable only when they actually result in unduly enhancing prices, limiting production, and lowering quality.