Misplaced Pages

#289710

74-580: Since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, courts in the United States had interpreted the law on cartels as applying against trade unions . This had created a problem for workers, who needed to organize to balance the equal bargaining power against their employers. The Sherman Act had also triggered the largest wave of mergers in US history, as businesses realized that instead of creating

148-565: A cartel they could simply fuse into a single corporation , and have all the benefits of market power that a cartel could bring. At the end of the Taft administration, and the start of the Woodrow Wilson administration, a Commission on Industrial Relations was established. During its proceedings, and in anticipation of its first report on October 23, 1914, legislation was introduced by Alabama Democrat Henry De Lamar Clayton Jr. in

222-495: A motion to dismiss , plaintiffs, under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , must plead facts consistent with FRCP 8(a) sufficient to show that a conspiracy is plausible (and not merely conceivable or possible). This protects defendants from bearing the costs of antitrust "fishing expeditions"; however it deprives plaintiffs of perhaps their only tool to acquire evidence (discovery). Second, courts have employed more sophisticated and principled definitions of markets. Market definition

296-553: A competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. In Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993) the Supreme Court said: The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. According to its authors, it

370-583: A country's capital or labour resources are employed outside its borders, or when a foreign firm is operating in its territory, GDP and GNP can produce different measures of total output. In 2009 for instance, the United States estimated its GDP at $ 14.119 trillion , and its GNP at $ 14.265 trillion. The term gross national income (GNI) has gradually replaced the Gross national product (GNP) in international statistics. While being conceptually identical,

444-741: A mere corporated form of the 'old fashioned' trust. Section 7 prohibits acquisitions where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. Another important factor to consider is the amendment passed in Congress on Section 7 of the Clayton Act in 1950. This original position of the US government on mergers and acquisitions was strengthened by the Celler-Kefauver amendments of 1950, so as to cover asset as well as stock acquisitions. Section 7a, 15 U.S.C.   § 18a , requires that companies notify

518-580: A merger-to-monopoly before there is a violation. It allows the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to regulate all mergers, and gives the government discretion whether to give approval to a merger or not, which it still commonly does today. The government often employs the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) test for market concentration to determine whether the merger is presumptively anticompetitive; if

592-455: A more sophisticated market definition that does not permit as manipulative a definition. Section 2 of the Act forbids monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate

666-440: A state requires conduct analyzed under the rule of reason, a court must carefully distinguish rule of reason analysis for preemption purposes from the analysis for liability purposes. To analyze whether preemption occurs, the court must determine whether the inevitable effects of a statutory restraint unreasonably restrain trade. If they do, preemption is warranted unless the statute passes the appropriate state action tests. But, when

740-496: A statute is attacked on its face or for its effects. A statute can be condemned on its face only when it mandates, authorizes or places irresistible pressure on private parties to engage in conduct constituting a per se violation of Section 1. If the statute does not mandate conduct violating a per se rule, the conduct is analyzed under the rule of reason, which requires an examination of the conduct's actual effects on competition. If unreasonable anticompetitive effects are created,

814-528: A sufficient reason for invalidating the ... statute. For if an adverse effect on competition were, in and of itself, enough to render a state statute invalid, the States' power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed. This indicates that not every anticompetitive effect warrants preemption. In neither Exxon nor New Motor Vehicle did the created effect constitute an antitrust violation. The Rice guideline therefore indicates that only when

SECTION 10

#1732765172290

888-504: Is a form of "injunctive relief" authorized by Section 16. Under the Clayton Act, only civil suits could be brought to the court's attention and a provision "permits a suit in the federal courts for three times the actual damages caused by anything forbidden in the antitrust laws", including court costs and attorney's fees. The Act is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission , which was also created and empowered during

962-517: Is also the less ambiguous gross national income . GNP is an economic statistic that is equal to GDP plus any income earned by residents from overseas investments minus income earned within the domestic economy by overseas residents. GNP does not distinguish between qualitative improvements in the state of the technical arts (e.g., increasing computer processing speeds), and quantitative increases in goods (e.g., number of computers produced), and considers both to be forms of " economic growth ". When

1036-428: Is as a measure of a nation's economic well-being, as it does not count most unpaid work and counts much economic activity that is unproductive or actually destructive. While GDP measures the market value of all final goods and services produced in a given country, GNI measures income generated by the country's citizens, regardless of the geographic location of the income. In many states, those two figures are close, as

1110-534: Is clarified by examining the three cases cited in Rice to support the statement. In New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co. , automobile manufacturers and retail franchisees contended that the Sherman Act preempted a statute requiring manufacturers to secure the permission of a state board before opening a new dealership if and only if a competing dealer protested. They argued that a conflict existed because

1184-465: Is clearly outside the reach of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which only extended to "concerted activities" (agreements). Exclusive dealing, tying, and mergers are all agreements, and theoretically, within the reach of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Likewise, mergers that create monopolies would be actionable under Sherman Act Section 2. Section 7 of the Clayton Act allows greater regulation of mergers than just Sherman Act Section 2, since it does not require

1258-436: Is divided into three sections. Section 1 delineates and prohibits specific means of anticompetitive conduct, while Section 2 deals with end results that are anti-competitive in nature. Thus, these sections supplement each other in an effort to prevent businesses from violating the spirit of the Act, while technically remaining within the letter of the law. Section 3 simply extends the provisions of Section 1 to U.S. territories and

1332-479: Is higher than it’s GDP as a lot of french residents work in Luxembourg , Monaco or Switzerland ; while India GNI is lower than it’s GDP despite being the larger receiver of remittance. GNI also include the propriety income: rent, interest and “profit”. The “profit” included both distributed income of corporation (dividends) and reinvested earning on foreign direct investment , those are profit retained by

1406-461: Is necessary, in rule of reason cases, for the plaintiff to prove a conspiracy is harmful. It is also necessary for the plaintiff to establish the market relationship between conspirators to prove their conduct is within the per se rule. In early cases, it was easier for plaintiffs to show market relationship, or dominance, by tailoring market definition, even if it ignored fundamental principles of economics. In U.S. v. Grinnell , 384 U.S. 563 (1966),

1480-401: Is the market value of all the goods and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens of a country. Unlike gross domestic product (GDP), which defines production based on the geographical location of production, GNP indicates allocated production based on location of ownership. In fact it calculates income by the location of ownership and residence, and so its name

1554-400: Is the total amount of factor incomes earned by the residents of a country. it is equal to gross domestic product (GDP), plus factor incomes received from non-resident by residents, minus factor income paid by residents to non-resident. In contrast to GDP, GNI is not a concept of value added, but a concept of income. GNI is the basis of calculation of the largest part of contributions to

SECTION 20

#1732765172290

1628-724: The Budget of the European Union . In February 2017, Ireland's GDP became so distorted from the base erosion and profit shifting ("BEPS") tax planning tools of U.S. multinationals, that the Central Bank of Ireland replaced Irish GDP with a new metric, Irish Modified GNI (or "GNI*"). In 2017, Irish GDP was 162% of Irish Modified GNI. GNI contrast with net national income  : GNI = NNI - Depreciation The Atlas method can be applied to correct for fluctuating exchange rates . The modern concept of GNP, along with GDP,

1702-647: The Clayton Act created exceptions for certain union activities, but the Supreme Court ruled in Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering that the actions allowed by the Act were already legal. Congress included provisions in the Norris–La Guardia Act in 1932 to more explicitly exempt organized labor from antitrust enforcement, and the Supreme Court upheld these exemptions in United States v. Hutcheson 312 U.S. 219 . To determine whether

1776-744: The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division of any contemplated mergers and acquisitions that meet or exceed certain thresholds. Pursuant to the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act , section 7A(a)(2) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product , in accordance with Section 8(a)(5) and take effect 30 days after publication in

1850-716: The OECD reports, in 2015 alone, Armenia has received a total of US$ 409 million development assistance. Over the past 25 years, USAID has provided more than one billion USD to improve the living of the people in Armenia. GNI equals GDP plus wages, salaries, and property income of the country's residents earned abroad that also constitutes the higher GNI figure. According to the UN report on migration from Armenia in 2015–17, every year around 15–20 thousand people leave Armenia permanently, and roughly 47% of those are working migrants that leave

1924-463: The 'rule of reason', the conduct is only illegal, and the plaintiff can only prevail, upon proving to the court that the defendants are doing substantial economic harm. An important difference between the Clayton Act and its predecessor, the Sherman Act, is that the Clayton Act contained safe harbors for union activities. Section 6 of the Act (codified at 15 U.S.C.   § 17 ) exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations, saying "that

1998-483: The Act preempts a state law , courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. The antitrust laws allow coincident state regulation of competition. The Supreme Court enunciated the test for determining when a state statute is in irreconcilable conflict with Section 1 of the Sherman Act in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. Different standards apply depending on whether

2072-413: The Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether the conduct unreasonably restrains trade. The law attempts to prevent

2146-511: The Act, with AFL head Samuel Gompers describing the law as "Labor's Magna Charta" or "Bill of Rights." The Supreme Court ruled in the 1922 case Federal Baseball Club v. National League that Major League Baseball was not "interstate commerce" and thus was not subject to federal antitrust law. Procedurally, the Act empowers private parties injured by violations of the Act to sue for treble damages under Section 4 and injunctive relief under Section 16. The Supreme Court has held that divestiture

2220-510: The Clayton Act. The amendment proscribed certain anti-competitive practices in which manufacturers engaged in price discrimination against equally-situated distributors. The federal government began filing cases under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Some cases were successful and others were not; many took several years to decide, including appeals. Notable cases filed under the act include: Congress claimed power to pass

2294-502: The District of Columbia. Section 1: Section 2: The Clayton Antitrust Act , passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Clayton Antitrust Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities: The Clayton Antitrust Act specifically states that unions are exempt from this ruling. The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936 amended

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 - Misplaced Pages Continue

2368-640: The Federal Register. (For example, see 74 FR 1687 and 16 CFR 801 .) Section 8 of the Act refers to the prohibition of one person of serving as director of two or more corporations if the certain threshold values are met, which are required to be set by regulation of the Federal Trade Commission, revised annually based on the change in gross national product, pursuant to the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. (For example, see 74 FR 1688 .) Because

2442-461: The HHI level for a particular merger exceeds a certain level, the government will investigate further to determine its probable competitive impact. Section 7 elaborates on specific and crucial concepts of the Clayton Act; " holding company " defined as "a company whose primary purpose is to hold stocks of other companies", which the government saw as a "common and favorite method of promoting monopoly" and

2516-577: The Robinson-Patman and Sherman Acts" should be preempted. In both New Motor Vehicle and Exxon , the Court upheld the statutes and rejected the arguments presented as Merely another way of stating that the ... statute will have an anticompetitive effect. In this sense, there is a conflict between the statute and the central policy of the Sherman Act – 'our charter of economic liberty'. ... Nevertheless, this sort of conflict cannot itself constitute

2590-507: The Sherman Act through its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce . Therefore, federal courts only have jurisdiction to apply the Act to conduct that restrains or substantially affects either interstate commerce. (Congress also has ultimate authority over economic rules within the District of Columbia and US territories under the 17th enumerated power and the Territorial Clause , respectively.) This requires that

2664-442: The Sherman Act was adopted, there were only a few federal statutes imposing penalties for obstructing or misusing interstate transportation. With an expanding commerce, many others have since been enacted safeguarding transportation in interstate commerce as the need was seen, including statutes declaring conspiracies to interfere or actual interference with interstate commerce by violence or threats of violence to be felonies. The law

2738-448: The Sherman Act, 21 Cong.Rec. 2456. It was in this sense of preventing restraints on commercial competition that Congress exercised "all the power it possessed." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, supra, 286 U. S. 435. At Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States , 85 F.2d 1, affirmed , 175 U. S. 175 U.S. 211; At Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States , 221 U. S. 1 , 221 U. S. 54 -58. The Sherman Act

2812-462: The Sherman Act, the statute "appears firmly anchored to the assumption that the Sherman Act will deter any attempts by the appellants to preserve their ... price level [in one state] by conspiring to raise the prices at which liquor is sold elsewhere in the country". Thus, Seagram indicates that when conduct required by a state statute combines with other conduct that, taken together, constitutes an illegal restraint of trade, liability may be imposed for

2886-458: The States, and the States have no authority to legislate in respect of commerce between the several States or with foreign nations. See also the statement on the floor of the House by Mr. Culberson, in charge of the bill, There is no attempt to exercise any doubtful authority on this subject, but the bill is confined strictly and alone to subjects over which, confessedly, there is no question about

2960-565: The U.S. House of Representatives. The Clayton Act passed by a vote of 277 to 54 on June 5, 1914. Though the Senate passed its own version on September 2, 1914, by a vote of 46–16, the final version of the law (written after deliberation between Senate and the House ), did not pass the Senate until October 6 and the House until October 8 of 1914. The Clayton Act made both substantive and procedural modifications to federal antitrust law. Substantively,

3034-652: The Wilson Presidency by the Federal Trade Commission Act, and also the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice . Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (26  Stat.   209 , 15 U.S.C.   §§ 1 – 7 ) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies . It

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 - Misplaced Pages Continue

3108-462: The act seeks to capture anticompetitive practices in their incipiency by prohibiting particular types of conduct not deemed in the best interest of a competitive market. There are 4 sections of the bill that proposed substantive changes in the antitrust laws by way of supplementing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In those sections, the Act thoroughly discusses the following four principles of economic trade and business: Unilateral price discrimination

3182-407: The act singles out exclusive dealing and tying arrangements, one may assume they would be subject to heightened scrutiny, perhaps they would even be illegal per se . That remains true for tying, under the authority of Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde . However, when exclusive dealings are challenged under Clayton-3 (or Sherman-1), they are treated under the rule of reason . Under

3256-458: The artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve

3330-411: The bill which was adopted without change, declared: No attempt is made to invade the legislative authority of the several States or even to occupy doubtful grounds. No system of laws can be devised by Congress alone which would effectually protect the people of the United States against the evils and oppression of trusts and monopolies. Congress has no authority to deal, generally, with the subject within

3404-1112: The corporation. Like in the IMF balance of payments manual they are treated as if they were distributed to foreign direct investors in proportion to their ownership of the equity of the enterprise and then reinvested by them by means of additions in equity. The GNI of EU countries also included subsided received from the EU institution and excluded tariff as those are received by EU institution. GNI contrast with Gross national disposable income with included all current transfer income like international cooperation and remittance. G N I = G D P + Money flowing from foreign countries − Money flowing to foreign countries {\displaystyle \mathrm {GNI} =\mathrm {GDP} +{\text{Money flowing from foreign countries}}-{\text{Money flowing to foreign countries}}} Nominal, Atlas method – millions of current US$ (top 15) PPP – millions of international dollars (top 15) Gross national product ( GNP )

3478-554: The country to earn income and sustain the families left in Armenia. In 2016 Armenian residents received in a total of around $ 150 million remittances. Armenia's GNI, measured in US dollars, amounted to USD 13.5 billion in 2021, according to the National Statistical Office. This is an 8.23% increase over the prior year. GNI in USD terms in Armenia has historically ranged from a record high of USD 13.8 billion in 2019 to

3552-403: The courts in the first instance to say how far they could carry it or its particular definitions as applicable to each particular case as the occasion might arise." Similarly Senator Hoar, a member of that committee who with Senator Edmunds was in charge of the bill, stated Gross national product The gross national income ( GNI ), previously known as gross national product ( GNP ),

3626-517: The difference between income received by the country versus payments made to the rest of the world is not significant. According to the World Bank , the GNI of the US in 2016 was 1.5% higher than GDP. In developing countries, on the other hand, the difference might be significant due to a large amount of foreign aid and capital inflow. In 2016, the GNI of Armenia was 4.45% higher than GDP. Based on

3700-400: The effect unreasonably restrains trade, and is therefore a violation, can preemption occur. The third case cited to support the "anticompetitive effect" guideline is Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter , in which the Court rejected a facial Sherman Act preemption challenge to a statute requiring that persons selling liquor to wholesalers affirm that the price charged was no higher than

3774-451: The given country” Despite framing GNP as concept of production, the attribution of the value was define by the income earned by owner of the factor of production. In the 1993 revision to the SNA, GNP definition was reframed from the point of view of the residents receiving income rather than the point of view of the factor of production. To reflect this, GNP was renamed GNI; the “national” part

SECTION 50

#1732765172290

3848-432: The judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them". Another important, yet, in the context of Rice , ambiguous guideline regarding preemption by Section 1 is the Court's statement that a "state statute is not preempted by the federal antitrust laws simply because the state scheme might have an anticompetitive effect". The meaning of this statement

3922-411: The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective". Therefore, boycotts , peaceful strikes , peaceful picketing , and collective bargaining are not regulated by this statute. Injunctions could be used to settle labor disputes only when property damage was threatened. The AFL strongly supported Section 6 of

3996-504: The legislative power of Congress. And see the statement of Senator Edmunds, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which reported out the bill in the form in which it passed, that in drafting that bill the committee thought that "we would frame a bill that should be clearly within our constitutional power, that we would make its definition out of terms that were well known to the law already, and would leave it to

4070-428: The lowest price at which sales were made anywhere in the United States during the previous month. Since the attack was a facial one, and the state law required no per se violations, no preemption could occur. The Court also rejected the possibility of preemption due to Sherman Act violations stemming from misuse of the statute. The Court stated that rather than imposing "irresistible economic pressure" on sellers to violate

4144-428: The market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. While the Act was aimed at regulating businesses, its prohibition of contracts restricting commerce was applied to the activities of labor unions until the 1930s. This is because unions were characterized as cartels as well (cartels of laborers). In 1914

4218-401: The market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited. The addition of the words "or commerce among the several States"

4292-606: The plaintiff must show that the conduct occurred during the flow of interstate commerce or had an appreciable effect on some activity that occurs during interstate commerce. A Section 1 violation has three elements: A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: Section 2 also bans attempted monopolization, which has the following elements: Violations of the Sherman Act fall (loosely ) into two categories: A modern trend has increased difficulty for antitrust plaintiffs as courts have come to hold plaintiffs to increasing burdens of pleading. Under older Section 1 precedent, it

4366-589: The precise calculation method has evolved at the same time as the name change. The United States used GNP as its primary measure of total economic activity until 1991, when it began to use GDP. In making the switch, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) noted both that GDP provided an easier comparison of other measures of economic activity in the United States and that "virtually all other countries have already adopted GDP as their primary measure of production". Many economists have questioned how meaningful GNP or GDP

4440-405: The required conduct violates Section 1 and the statute is in irreconcilable conflict with the Sherman Act. Then statutory arrangement is analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as "state action" and is thereby saved from preemption. Rice sets out guidelines to aid in preemption analysis. Preemption should not occur "simply because in a hypothetical situation a private party's compliance with

4514-403: The restraint without requiring preemption of the state statute. Rice v. Norman Williams Co. supports this misuse limitation on preemption. Rice states that while particular conduct or arrangements by private parties would be subject to per se or rule of reason analysis to determine liability, "[t]here is no basis ... for condemning the statute itself by force of the Sherman Act." Thus, when

SECTION 60

#1732765172290

4588-498: The statute might cause him to violate the antitrust laws". This language suggests that preemption occurs only if economic analysis determines that the statutory requirements create "an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of anticompetitive effect", and does not occur simply because it is possible to use the statute in an anticompetitive manner. It should not mean that preemption is impossible whenever both procompetitive and anticompetitive results are conceivable. The per se rule "reflects

4662-685: The statute permitted "auto dealers to invoke state power for the purpose of restraining intrabrand competition". In Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland , oil companies challenged a state statute requiring uniform statewide gasoline prices in situations where the Robinson-Patman Act would permit charging different prices. They reasoned that the Robinson-Patman Act is a qualification of our "more basic national policy favoring free competition" and that any state statute altering "the competitive balance that Congress struck between

4736-458: The statutory conduct combines with other practices in a larger conspiracy to restrain trade, or when the statute is used to violate the antitrust laws in a market in which such a use is not compelled by the state statute, the private party might be subjected to antitrust liability without preemption of the statute. The Act was not intended to regulate existing state statutes regulating commerce within state borders. The House committee, in reporting

4810-503: The trial judge, Charles Wyzanski , composed the market only of alarm companies with services in every state, tailoring out any local competitors; the defendant stood alone in this market, but had the court added up the entire national market, it would have had a much smaller share of the national market for alarm services that the court purportedly used. The appellate courts affirmed this finding; however, today, an appellate court would likely find this definition to be flawed. Modern courts use

4884-401: The use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition." At Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader 310 U.S. 469 , 310 U. S. 492 -93 and n. 15: The legislative history of the Sherman Act, as well as the decisions of this Court interpreting it, show that it was not aimed at policing interstate transportation or movement of goods and property. The legislative history and

4958-436: The voluminous literature which was generated in the course of the enactment and during fifty years of litigation of the Sherman Act give no hint that such was its purpose. They do not suggest that, in general, state laws or law enforcement machinery were inadequate to prevent local obstructions or interferences with interstate transportation, or presented any problem requiring the interposition of federal authority. In 1890, when

5032-444: Was enacted in the era of "trusts" and of "combinations" of businesses and of capital organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, the monopolistic tendency of which had become a matter of public concern. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control

5106-548: Was first developed by Simon Kuznets for a 1934 U.S. Congress report. Countries like the US and the UK originally preferred GNP as a mesure of economic activity while other like Norway preferred GDP. Overtime communication harmonize around GDP included in the US which switched in 1991. GNP was defined in the 1953 SNA as : “the market value of product before deduction of provisions of consumption of fixed capital, attributable to factors of production supplied by normal residents of

5180-505: Was keep as it is embedded in economic usage, even though the same concept of residence is use to defined both GDP and GNI. GNP continue to be uses in the National income and product accounts to referd to GNI calculated for expenditure data. GNI include the salaries and wages of cross-border commuter and seasonal worker working oversea but do not include remittance send by worker to their family oversea. This explain why France GNI

5254-603: Was not an additional kind of restraint to be prohibited by the Sherman Act, but was the means used to relate the prohibited restraint of trade to interstate commerce for constitutional purposes, Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 286 U. S. 434, so that Congress, through its commerce power, might suppress and penalize restraints on the competitive system which involved or affected interstate commerce. Because many forms of restraint upon commercial competition extended across state lines so as to make regulation by state action difficult or impossible, Congress enacted

5328-415: Was not intended to impact market gains obtained by honest means, by benefiting the consumers more than the competitors. Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts , another author of the Sherman Act, said the following: ... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like

5402-449: Was not settled how much evidence was required to show a conspiracy. For example, a conspiracy could be inferred based on parallel conduct, etc. That is, plaintiffs were only required to show that a conspiracy was conceivable. Since the 1970s, however, courts have held plaintiffs to higher standards, giving antitrust defendants an opportunity to resolve cases in their favor before significant discovery under FRCP 12(b)(6). That is, to overcome

5476-493: Was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman , its principal author. The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating

#289710