The Northern Securities Company was a short-lived American railroad trust formed in 1901 by E. H. Harriman , James J. Hill , J. P. Morgan and their associates. The company controlled the Northern Pacific Railway ; Great Northern Railway ; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad ; and other associated lines. It was capitalized at $ 400 million, and Hill served as president.
121-633: The company was sued in 1902 under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by the Justice Department under President Theodore Roosevelt , one of the first antitrust cases filed against corporate interests instead of labor. The government won its case, and the company was dissolved, so that the three railroads again operated independently. Hill was the president of the Great Northern Railway and Harriman controlled
242-495: 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
363-405: A " de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly , in which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or company to be the sole provider of a commodity. Monopoly may be granted explicitly, as when potential competitors are excluded from the market by a specific law , or implicitly, such as when the requirements of an administrative regulation can only be fulfilled by
484-509: A PC market are price takers. The price is set by the interaction of demand and supply at the market or aggregate level. Individual companies simply take the price determined by the market and produce that quantity of output that maximizes the company's profits. If a PC company attempted to increase prices above the market level all its customers would abandon the company and purchase at the market price from other companies. A monopoly has considerable although not unlimited market power. A monopoly has
605-739: A boarding pass before boarding an airplane. Most travelers assume that this practice is strictly a matter of security. However, a primary purpose in requesting photographic identification is to confirm that the ticket purchaser is the person about to board the airplane and not someone who has repurchased the ticket from a discount buyer. The inability to prevent resale is the largest obstacle to successful price discrimination. Companies have, however, developed numerous methods to prevent resale. For example, universities require that students show identification before entering sporting events. Governments may make it illegal to resell tickets or products. In Boston, Red Sox baseball tickets can only be resold legally to
726-598: A company cannot charge more than the market price. Any market structure characterized by a downward sloping demand curve has market power – monopoly, monopolistic competition and oligopoly. The only market structure that has no market power is perfect competition. A company wishing to practice price discrimination must be able to prevent middlemen or brokers from acquiring the consumer surplus for themselves. The company accomplishes this by preventing or limiting resale. Many methods are used to prevent resale. For instance, persons are required to show photographic identification and
847-553: 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
968-426: A consumer's tax return has information that can be used to charge customers based on an estimate of their ability to pay. In second degree price discrimination or quantity discrimination customers are charged different prices based on how much they buy. There is a single price schedule for all consumers but the prices vary depending on the quantity of the good bought. The theory of second degree price discrimination
1089-438: A consumer's willingness to pay is rarely available. Sellers tend to rely on secondary information such as where a person lives (postal codes); for example, catalog retailers can use mail high-priced catalogs to high-income postal codes. First degree price discrimination most frequently occurs in regard to professional services or in transactions involving direct buyer-seller negotiations. For example, an accountant who has prepared
1210-549: A customer's willingness to buy a good is difficult. Asking consumers directly is fruitless: consumers do not know, and to the extent they do they are reluctant to share that information with marketers. The two main methods for determining willingness to buy are observation of personal characteristics and consumer actions. As noted information about where a person lives (postal codes), how the person dresses, what kind of car he or she drives, occupation, and income and spending patterns can be helpful in classifying. The price of monopoly
1331-492: A different price. Third degree price discrimination is the most prevalent type. There are three conditions that must be present for a company to engage in successful price discrimination. First, the company must have market power. Second, the company must be able to sort customers according to their willingness to pay for the good. Third, the firm must be able to prevent resell. A company must have some degree of market power to practice price discrimination. Without market power
SECTION 10
#17328007464231452-537: A dominant position or a monopoly in a market is often not illegal in itself; however, certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly , by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group . Patents , copyrights , and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government-granted monopolies. The government may also reserve
1573-400: A few entities have market power and therefore interact with their customers (monopoly or oligopoly), or suppliers (monopsony) in ways that distort the market. Monopolies can be formed by mergers and integrations, form naturally , or be established by a government. In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies due to government concerns over potential adverse effects. Holding
1694-424: A given product or service. If there is a single seller in a certain market and there are no close substitutes for the product, then the market structure is that of a "pure monopoly". Sometimes, there are many sellers in an industry or there exist many close substitutes for the goods being produced, but nevertheless, companies retain some market power. This is termed "monopolistic competition", whereas in an oligopoly ,
1815-409: A high rate of return or monopoly prices and might represent risk premiums . Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry – circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market. There are three major types of barriers to entry: economic, legal, and deliberate. In addition to barriers to entry and competition, barriers to exit may be
1936-433: A higher price than P ∗ {\displaystyle P^{*}} and those who will not pay P ∗ {\displaystyle P^{*}} but would buy at a lower price. A price discrimination strategy is to charge less price sensitive buyers a higher price and the more price sensitive buyers a lower price. Thus additional revenue is generated from two sources. The basic problem
2057-515: A market and what does not are relevant distinctions to make in economic analysis. In a general equilibrium context, a good is a specific concept including geographical and time-related characteristics. Most studies of market structure relax a little their definition of a good, allowing for more flexibility in the identification of substitute goods. A monopoly has at least one of these five characteristics: Market power can be estimated with Lerner index . High profit margins might not correspond to
2178-416: A maximum value then continuously decreases until total revenue is again zero. Total revenue has its maximum value when the slope of the total revenue function is zero. The slope of the total revenue function is marginal revenue. So the revenue maximizing quantity and price occur when MR = 0 {\displaystyle {\text{MR}}=0} . For example, assume that the monopoly's demand function
2299-473: A monopolist to increase its profit by charging higher prices for identical goods to those who are willing or able to pay more. For example, most economic textbooks cost more in the United States than in developing countries like Ethiopia . In this case, the publisher is using its government-granted copyright monopoly to price discriminate between the generally wealthier American economics students and
2420-405: A monopolistic combination. The Northern Securities Company was formed by Hill to control the stock of his major railroad properties. Some of Harriman's directors were appointed as representatives for his holdings of Northern Pacific shares. A public outcry over the new company made its way throughout the country, and both state and federal officials prepared to file litigation. On February 19, 1902,
2541-454: A monopoly is that the monopoly has a downward-sloping demand curve rather than the "perceived" perfectly elastic curve of the PC company. Practically all the variations mentioned above relate to this fact. If there is a downward-sloping demand curve then by necessity there is a distinct marginal revenue curve. The implications of this fact are best made manifest with a linear demand curve. Assume that
SECTION 20
#17328007464232662-509: A monopoly. Often, a natural monopoly is the outcome of an initial rivalry between several competitors. An early market entrant that takes advantage of the cost structure and can expand rapidly can exclude smaller companies from entering and can drive or buy out other companies. A natural monopoly suffers from the same inefficiencies as any other monopoly. Left to its own devices, a profit-seeking natural monopoly will produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. Regulation of natural monopolies
2783-447: A more elastic demand for movies than do young adults because they generally have more free time. Thus theaters will offer discount tickets to seniors. Assume that by a uniform pricing system the monopolist would sell five units at a price of $ 10 per unit. Assume that his marginal cost is $ 5 per unit. Total revenue would be $ 50, total costs would be $ 25 and profits would be $ 25. If the monopolist practiced price discrimination he would sell
2904-496: A more price inelastic demand and a relatively lesser price to the group with a more elastic demand. Examples of third degree price discrimination abound. Airlines charge higher prices to business travelers than to vacation travelers. The reasoning is that the demand curve for a vacation traveler is relatively elastic while the demand curve for a business traveler is relatively inelastic. Any determinant of price elasticity of demand can be used to segment markets. For example, seniors have
3025-455: 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
3146-421: A perfectly elastic demand curve meaning that total revenue is proportional to output. Thus the total revenue curve for a competitive company is a ray with a slope equal to the market price. A competitive company can sell all the output it desires at the market price. For a monopoly to increase sales it must reduce price. Thus the total revenue curve for a monopoly is a parabola that begins at the origin and reaches
3267-477: A price increase, price elasticity tends to increase, and in the optimum case above it will be greater than one for most customers. A company maximizes profit by selling where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. A company that does not engage in price discrimination will charge the profit maximizing price, P ∗ {\displaystyle P^{*}} , to all its customers. In such circumstances there are customers who would be willing to pay
3388-424: A single agent or entrepreneur, the optimal decision is to equate the marginal cost and marginal revenue of production. Nonetheless, a pure monopoly can – unlike a competitive company – alter the market price for its own convenience: a decrease of production results in a higher price. In the economics' jargon, it is said that pure monopolies have "a downward-sloping demand". An important consequence of such behaviour
3509-482: A source of market power. Barriers to exit are market conditions that make it difficult or expensive for a company to end its involvement with a market. High liquidation costs are a primary barrier to exiting. Market exit and shutdown are sometimes separate events. The decision of whether to shut down or operate is not affected by exit barriers. A company will shut down if the price falls below minimum average variable costs. While monopoly and perfect competition represent
3630-440: 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
3751-496: 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,
Northern Securities Company - Misplaced Pages Continue
3872-402: A substitute. Contrary to common misconception , monopolists do not try to sell items for the highest possible price, nor do they try to maximize profit per unit, but rather they try to maximize total profit. A natural monopoly is an organization that experiences increasing returns to scale over the relevant range of output and relatively high fixed costs. A natural monopoly occurs where
3993-528: 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
4114-406: Is P = 50 − 2 Q {\displaystyle P=50-2Q} . The total revenue function would be TR = 50 Q − 2 Q 2 {\displaystyle {\text{TR}}=50Q-2Q^{2}} and marginal revenue would be 50 − 4 Q {\displaystyle 50-4Q} . Setting marginal revenue equal to zero we have So
4235-502: Is a consumer is willing to buy only a certain quantity of a good at a given price. Companies know that consumer's willingness to buy decreases as more units are purchased. The task for the seller is to identify these price points and to reduce the price once one is reached in the hope that a reduced price will trigger additional purchases from the consumer. For example, sell in unit blocks rather than individual units. In third degree price discrimination or multi-market price discrimination
4356-404: Is a market in which one person or company is the only supplier of a particular good or service. A monopoly is characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular thing, a lack of viable substitute goods , and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit . The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to
4477-400: Is a theoretical construct, advances in information technology and micromarketing may bring it closer to the realm of possibility. Partial price discrimination can cause some customers who are inappropriately pooled with high price customers to be excluded from the market. For example, a poor student in the U.S. might be excluded from purchasing an economics textbook at the U.S. price, which
4598-534: 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
4719-681: Is defined by the total gains from trade, the monopoly setting is less efficient than perfect competition. It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and less innovative over time, becoming "complacent", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of psychological efficiency can increase a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of
4840-436: 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
4961-417: Is important information for one to remember when considering the monopoly model diagram (and its associated conclusions) displayed here. The result that monopoly prices are higher, and production output lesser, than a competitive company follow from a requirement that the monopoly not charge different prices for different customers. That is, the monopoly is restricted from engaging in price discrimination (this
Northern Securities Company - Misplaced Pages Continue
5082-401: Is known as the "revolution in monopoly theory". A monopolist can extract only one premium, and getting into complementary markets does not pay. That is, the total profits a monopolist could earn if it sought to leverage its monopoly in one market by monopolizing a complementary market are equal to the extra profits it could earn anyway by charging more for the monopoly product itself. However,
5203-461: 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),
5324-400: Is not perfect. Regulators must estimate average costs. Companies have a reduced incentive to lower costs. Regulation of this type has not been limited to natural monopolies. Average-cost pricing does also have some disadvantages. By setting price equal to the intersection of the demand curve and the average total cost curve, the firm's output is allocatively inefficient as the price is less than
5445-400: Is problematic. Fragmenting such monopolies is by definition inefficient. The most frequently used methods dealing with natural monopolies are government regulations and public ownership. Government regulation generally consists of regulatory commissions charged with the principal duty of setting prices. Natural monopolies are synonymous with what is called "single-unit enterprise", a term which
5566-448: Is termed first degree price discrimination , such that all customers are charged the same amount). If the monopoly were permitted to charge individualised prices (this is termed third degree price discrimination ), the quantity produced, and the price charged to the marginal customer, would be identical to that of a competitive company, thus eliminating the deadweight loss ; however, all gains from trade (social welfare) would accrue to
5687-621: Is that typically a monopoly selects a higher price and lesser quantity of output than a price-taking company; again, less is available at a higher price. A monopoly chooses that price that maximizes the difference between total revenue and total cost. The basic markup rule (as measured by the Lerner index ) can be expressed as P − M C P = − 1 E d {\displaystyle {\frac {P-MC}{P}}={\frac {-1}{E_{d}}}} , where E d {\displaystyle E_{d}}
5808-560: Is the only market form in which price discrimination would be impossible (a perfectly competitive company has a perfectly elastic demand curve and has no market power). There are three forms of price discrimination. First degree price discrimination charges each consumer the maximum price the consumer is willing to pay. Second degree price discrimination involves quantity discounts. Third degree price discrimination involves grouping consumers according to willingness to pay as measured by their price elasticities of demand and charging each group
5929-535: Is the price elasticity of demand the firm faces. The markup rules indicate that the ratio between profit margin and the price is inversely proportional to the price elasticity of demand. The implication of the rule is that the more elastic the demand for the product the less pricing power the monopoly has. Market power is the ability to increase the product's price above marginal cost without losing all customers. Perfectly competitive (PC) companies have zero market power when it comes to setting prices. All companies of
6050-517: Is to identify customers by their willingness to pay. The purpose of price discrimination is to transfer consumer surplus to the producer. Consumer surplus is the difference between the value of a good to a consumer and the price the consumer must pay in the market to purchase it. Price discrimination is not limited to monopolies. Market power is a company's ability to increase prices without losing all its customers. Any company that has market power can engage in price discrimination. Perfect competition
6171-441: Is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which it is supposed they will consent to give; the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at
SECTION 50
#17328007464236292-709: 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
6413-554: The Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway merged on March 2, 1970, to form the Burlington Northern Railroad . 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
6534-681: The Union Pacific Railroad , two of the largest railroads in the U.S. Both sought control of the Burlington to connect their roads to the vital railroad hub of Chicago, Illinois . Hill, who also had a minority interest in the Northern Pacific Railway , outbid Harriman for the Burlington, by agreeing to Burlington President Charles Elliott Perkins's $ 200-a-share price. Together, the Great Northern and
6655-644: The United States Department of Justice announced plans to file a suit against the company. When approached by J. P. Morgan to settle the issue in private, President Roosevelt refused; he later remarked, "Mr. Morgan could not help regarding me as a big rival operator who either intended to ruin all his interests or could be induced to come to an agreement to ruin none." Although Roosevelt still believed that trusts were not always bad for society, he could not bear to feel treated as just another rival operator. The suit continued. The Justice Department won
6776-427: The process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises . Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have
6897-559: The "Northern Pacific Corner". Speculators had sold shares that they did not own, and were now desperate to purchase shares at any price-some shares reportedly sold at $ 1,000. Hill, working with J. P. Morgan, took majority control of the Northern Pacific despite Harriman's best efforts. This speculation resonated throughout the stock market and the country as a whole. The two men, their backers, and associates agreed to settle their differences and eliminate ruinous competition through
7018-483: 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
7139-413: 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
7260-570: 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
7381-502: 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
SECTION 60
#17328007464237502-520: The Northern Pacific assumed control of nearly 100 percent of the Burlington's outstanding stock. Knowing that the Northern Pacific controlled almost 49.3 percent of the Burlington's stock, Harriman launched a stock raid against the Northern Pacific. Control of the Northern Pacific would allow him to appoint directors to the Burlington, which could then be forced to treat Harriman's Union Pacific favorably in business matters. Harriman's stock raid in May 1901 led to
7623-577: 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
7744-507: 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
7865-442: 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
7986-448: 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
8107-462: 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
8228-458: 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
8349-503: The Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads. The Northern Securities case was one of the earliest antitrust cases and provided important legal precedents for many later cases, including that against Major League Baseball . In 1955, the Northern Pacific and Great Northern renewed talks of merging. The Supreme Court approved the merger, and as a result, the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Chicago Burlington & Quincy, and
8470-458: 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
8591-403: The average cost of production "declines throughout the relevant range of product demand". The relevant range of product demand is where the average cost curve is below the demand curve. When this situation occurs, it is always more efficient for one large company to supply the market than multiple smaller companies; in fact, absent government intervention in such markets, will naturally evolve into
8712-411: 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
8833-467: The case that at the profit-maximizing quantity MR and MC are less than price, which further implies that a monopoly produces less quantity at a higher price than if the market were perfectly competitive. The fact that a monopoly has a downward-sloping demand curve means that the relationship between total revenue and output for a monopoly is much different from that of competitive companies. Total revenue equals price times quantity. A competitive company has
8954-558: The companies interact strategically. In general, the main results from this theory compare the price-fixing methods across market structures, analyze the effect of a certain structure on welfare, and vary technological or demand assumptions in order to assess the consequences for an abstract model of society. Most economic textbooks follow the practice of carefully explaining the "perfect competition" model, mainly because this helps to understand departures from it (the so-called "imperfect competition" models). The boundaries of what constitutes
9075-423: 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 Monopoly A monopoly (from Greek μόνος , mónos , 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν , pōleîn , 'to sell')
9196-400: 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
9317-414: The extremes of market structures there is some similarity. The cost functions are the same. Both monopolies and perfectly competitive (PC) companies minimize cost and maximize profit. The shutdown decisions are the same. Both are assumed to have perfectly competitive factors markets. There are distinctions; some of the most important are as follows: The most significant distinction between a PC company and
9438-407: The first unit for $ 17 the second unit for $ 14 and so on which is listed in the table below. Total revenue would be $ 55, his total cost would be $ 25 and his profit would be $ 30. Several things are worth noting. The monopolist acquires all the consumer surplus and eliminates practically all the deadweight loss because he is willing to sell to anyone who is willing to pay at least the marginal cost. Thus
9559-400: The form of price control is necessary as it helped efficient market. To reduce prices and increase output, regulators often use average cost pricing. By average cost pricing, the price and quantity are determined by the intersection of the average cost curve and the demand curve. This pricing scheme eliminates any positive economic profits since price equals average cost. Average-cost pricing
9680-429: The generally poorer Ethiopian economics students. Similarly, most patented medications cost more in the U.S. than in other countries with a (presumed) poorer customer base. Typically, a high general price is listed, and various market segments get varying discounts. This is an example of framing to make the process of charging some people higher prices more socially acceptable. Perfect price discrimination would allow
9801-468: The inverse demand curve is of the form x = a − b y {\displaystyle x=a-by} . Then the total revenue curve is TR = a y − b y 2 {\displaystyle {\text{TR}}=ay-by^{2}} and the marginal revenue curve is thus MR = a − 2 b y {\displaystyle {\text{MR}}=a-2by} . From this several things are evident. First,
9922-432: 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
10043-504: 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
10164-428: 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
10285-466: The marginal cost (which is the output quantity for a perfectly competitive and allocatively efficient market). In 1848, J.S. Mill was the first individual to describe monopolies with the adjective "natural". He used it interchangeably with "practical". At the time, Mill gave the following examples of natural or practical monopolies: gas supply, water supply, roads, canals, and railways. In his Social Economics , Friedrich von Wieser demonstrated his view of
10406-587: The marginal revenue curve has the same x {\displaystyle x} -intercept as the inverse demand curve. Second, the slope of the marginal revenue curve is twice that of the inverse demand curve. What is not quite so evident is that the marginal revenue curve is below the inverse demand curve at all points ( y ≥ 0 {\displaystyle y\geq 0} ). Since all companies maximise profits by equating MR {\displaystyle {\text{MR}}} and MC {\displaystyle {\text{MC}}} it must be
10527-428: 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
10648-401: 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"
10769-401: The monopolist and none to the consumer. In essence, every consumer would be indifferent between going completely without the product or service and being able to purchase it from the monopolist. As long as the price elasticity of demand for most customers is less than one in absolute value , it is advantageous for a company to increase its prices: it receives more money for fewer goods. With
10890-445: The monopolist to charge each customer the exact maximum amount they would be willing to pay. This would allow the monopolist to extract all the consumer surplus of the market. A domestic example would be the cost of airplane flights in relation to their takeoff time; the closer they are to flight, the higher the plane tickets will cost, discriminating against late planners and often business flyers. While such perfect price discrimination
11011-402: The one monopoly profit theorem is not true if customers in the monopoly good are stranded or poorly informed, or if the tied good has high fixed costs. A pure monopoly has the same economic rationality of perfectly competitive companies, i.e. to optimise a profit function given some constraints. By the assumptions of increasing marginal costs, exogenous inputs' prices, and control concentrated on
11132-606: 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
11253-508: The postal service as a natural monopoly: "In the face of [such] single-unit administration, the principle of competition becomes utterly abortive. The parallel network of another postal organization, beside the one already functioning, would be economically absurd; enormous amounts of money for plant and management would have to be expended for no purpose whatever." Overall, most monopolies are man-made monopolies, or unnatural monopolies, not natural ones. A government-granted monopoly (also called
11374-445: The power to raise prices in a small industry (or market). A monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. A monopsony is a market situation in which there is only one buyer. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies are all situations in which one or
11495-426: The power to set prices or quantities although not both. A monopoly is a price maker. The monopoly is the market and prices are set by the monopolist based on their circumstances and not the interaction of demand and supply. The two primary factors determining monopoly market power are the company's demand curve and its cost structure. Market power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of exchange so that
11616-455: The price discrimination promotes efficiency. Secondly, by the pricing scheme price = average revenue and equals marginal revenue. That is the monopolist behaving like a perfectly competitive company. Thirdly, the discriminating monopolist produces a larger quantity than the monopolist operating by a uniform pricing scheme. Successful price discrimination requires that companies separate consumers according to their willingness to buy. Determining
11737-403: The price of a product is set by a single company (price is not imposed by the market as in perfect competition). Although a monopoly's market power is great it is still limited by the demand side of the market. A monopoly has a negatively sloped demand curve, not a perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some customers. Price discrimination allows
11858-453: The product or service less than its price, monopoly pricing creates a deadweight loss referring to potential gains that went neither to the monopolist nor to consumers. Deadweight loss is the cost to society because it is inefficient. Given the presence of this deadweight loss, the combined surplus (or wealth) for the monopolist and consumers is necessarily less than the total surplus obtained by consumers by perfect competition. Where efficiency
11979-405: 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
12100-403: 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
12221-490: The revenue maximizing quantity for the monopoly is 12.5 units and the revenue-maximizing price is 25. A company with a monopoly does not experience price pressure from competitors, although it may experience pricing pressure from potential competition. If a company increases prices too much, then others may enter the market if they are able to provide the same good, or a substitute, at a lesser price. The idea that monopolies in markets with easy entry need not be regulated against
12342-412: The risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants. This is likely to happen when a market's barriers to entry are low. It might also be because of the availability in the longer term of substitutes in other markets. For example, a canal monopoly, while worth a great deal during the late 18th century United Kingdom, was worth much less during the late 19th century because of the introduction of railways as
12463-445: The same time continue their business. ...Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management. – Adam Smith (1776), The Wealth of Nations According to the standard model, in which a monopolist sets a single price for all consumers, the monopolist will sell a lesser quantity of goods at a higher price than would companies by perfect competition . Because the monopolist ultimately forgoes transactions with consumers who value
12584-406: The seller divides the consumers into different groups according to their willingness to pay as measured by their price elasticity of demand. Each group of consumers effectively becomes a separate market with its own demand curve and marginal revenue curve. The firm then attempts to maximize profits in each segment by equating MR and MC, Generally the company charges a higher price to the group with
12705-498: 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
12826-685: 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
12947-458: 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
13068-648: The student may have been able to purchase at the Ethiopian price. Similarly, a wealthy student in Ethiopia may be able to or willing to buy at the U.S. price, though naturally would hide such a fact from the monopolist so as to pay the reduced third world price. These are deadweight losses and decrease a monopolist's profits. Deadweight loss is considered detrimental to society and market participation. As such, monopolists have substantial economic interest in improving their market information and market segmenting . There
13189-430: The study of management structures, which directly concerns normative aspects of economic competition, and provides the basis for topics such as industrial organization and economics of regulation . There are four basic types of market structures in traditional economic analysis: perfect competition , monopolistic competition , oligopoly and monopoly. A monopoly is a structure in which a single supplier produces and sells
13310-549: The suit and the company was dissolved according to the 1904 Supreme Court ruling in Northern Securities Co. v. United States case, decided five to four. The companies were convicted under the Sherman Antitrust Act . In the following seven years, 44 other federal antitrust cases turned out rulings similar to the Northern Securities case. Included in these break-ups were Harriman's own holdings of
13431-442: The team. The three basic forms of price discrimination are first, second and third degree price discrimination. In first degree price discrimination the company charges the maximum price each customer is willing to pay. The maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a unit of the good is the reservation price. Thus for each unit the seller tries to set the price equal to the consumer's reservation price. Direct information about
13552-503: 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
13673-401: 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
13794-407: The venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly , for example with a state-owned company . Monopolies may be naturally occurring due to limited competition because the industry is resource intensive and requires substantial costs to operate (e.g., certain railroad systems). Market structure is determined by following factors: In economics, the idea of monopolies is important in
13915-436: 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
14036-444: 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
14157-603: 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
14278-415: 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
14399-449: 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
14520-493: 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
14641-591: Was used in the 1914 book Social Economics written by Friedrich von Wieser. As mentioned, government regulations are frequently used with natural monopolies to help control prices. An example that can illustrate this can be found when looking at the United States Postal Service, which has a monopoly over types of mail. According to Wieser, the idea of a competitive market within the postal industry would lead to extreme prices and unnecessary spending, and this highlighted why government regulation in
#422577