Justice Department Issues Report on Antitrust Monopoly Law

[Dover]

Justice Department Issues Report on Antitrust Monopoly Law


Report Provides Consumers, Businesses, and Policy Makers With Analysis of
Single-Firm Conduct Under the Antitrust Laws

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Department of Justice today
issued a report informing consumers, businesses and policy makers about issues
relating to monopolization offenses under the antitrust laws. The report,
"Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman
Act," examines whether and when specific types of single-firm conduct may or
may not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act by harming competition and
consumer welfare.

The Department's report draws extensively on a series of joint hearings,
involving more than 100 participants, that the Department and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) held from June 2006 to May 2007 to explore in depth the
antitrust treatment of single-firm conduct. The 213-page report also
incorporates commentary found in scholarly literature and the jurisprudence of
the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits a firm from illegally acquiring or
maintaining a monopoly, meaning the ability to exclude competitors and
profitably raise price significantly above competitive levels for a sustained
period of time. Unlike antitrust laws that prohibit anticompetitive mergers
or other agreements among firms, Section 2 particularly targets single-firm
conduct, such as decisions regarding whether and on what terms to sell to or
buy from others. Although possessing monopoly power is not unlawful, using an
improper means to seek or maintain monopoly power is unlawful where it can
harm competition and consumers.

"Single-firm conduct offers some of the greatest challenges in antitrust
enforcement today," said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Department's Antitrust Division. "While we need to identify and
prohibit conduct that harms the competitive process, we also need to avoid
interfering in the rough and tumble of beneficial competition that drives
innovation and economic growth. This report draws on the rich body of
commentary created during the hearings, judicial precedent, and scholarly
research to help us better achieve both objectives. With standards that are
more clear and administrable, businesses are more likely to comply with the
law, violations will be easier to identify and remedy, and consumers will be
better served."

The report discusses the important role that Section 2 plays in antitrust
enforcement and the principles that guide that enforcement today. The report
identifies and discusses a number of areas of consensus with respect to the
proper treatment of single-firm conduct and highlights and examines those
areas in which there is not yet consensus. The report seeks to make progress
toward the goal of developing sound, clear, objective, effective and
administrable standards for Section 2 analysis. It addresses the following
specific issues: monopoly power; conduct standards; predatory pricing and
bidding; tying; bundled and single-product loyalty discounts; unilateral,
unconditional refusals to deal with rivals; exclusive dealing; remedies; and
international perspectives...>

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS161331+08-Sep-2008+PRN20080908

[AdHocSolver]

1. This is a smokescreen. The thievery has always come from cartels, collusion by several corporations.

Their have been few instances of a single corporation being a monopoly and controlling an entire market by itself.

A market "leader" may dictate economic policies to skew markets in its favor, but the rest of the companies involved in the relevant market go along to profit from the collusion.


(snip)
**********
"Single-firm conduct offers some of the greatest challenges in antitrust
enforcement today," said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Department's Antitrust Division.
**********

This statement about "single-firm conduct" is your clue that this is a sham. The major "challenge" has been about proving collusion between industry leaders in parceling out market share to avoid competition and thereby increase profits.

An example of collusion that harms the public are the health insurance companies. There are many of them, but few of them compete in a meaningful way. By maintaining the same level of pricing, using similar policies about "pre-existing conditions", and agreeing to make it difficult to switch insurance companies, they have effectively gained monopolistic control without being monopolies by definition.

On the contrary, a regulated "monopoly" like Medicare provides better service and costs far less to operate.