Antitrust: Difference between revisions
m (Antitrust Law moved to Antitrust: All outlines will not include "Law" in them from henceforth.) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
===Enforcement=== | ===Enforcement=== | ||
==== Direct Purchaser ==== | |||
Generally, only the "direct purchaser" may have standing to sue for antitrust injury. In [[Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois]], an indirect purchaser of concrete blocks attempted to sue the manufacturer of the blocks. The blocks had come to the purchaser through two levels in the supply chain. The indirect purchaser was found to not have been injured by the alleged antitrust violations. | |||
One policy rationale behind the direct purchaser requirement is that | |||
==== Antitrust Injury ==== | |||
[[Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.]] tells us that antitrust injury must come "'by reason of' that which made the acquisitions unlawful." What makes the acquisition unlawful is injury to competition. | |||
The injury should reflect the anticompetitive effect either of the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation. It should, in short, be “the type of loss that claimed violations . . . would be likely to cause.” | |||
===Additional Antitrust Defenses=== | ===Additional Antitrust Defenses=== | ||
Revision as of 22:09, December 20, 2006
This Antitrust Outline only has the framework to which the substance needs to be added. If you are so inclined, please feel free!
Introduction to the Competition Model
Policies and Goals of Antitrust Regulation
Common Law
Framework for Analysis
Economic Problem
Market in Movement
Judicial Emphasis on Economic Reasoning
Special Problems of Antitrust Enforcement
Enforcement
Direct Purchaser
Generally, only the "direct purchaser" may have standing to sue for antitrust injury. In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, an indirect purchaser of concrete blocks attempted to sue the manufacturer of the blocks. The blocks had come to the purchaser through two levels in the supply chain. The indirect purchaser was found to not have been injured by the alleged antitrust violations.
One policy rationale behind the direct purchaser requirement is that
Antitrust Injury
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. tells us that antitrust injury must come "'by reason of' that which made the acquisitions unlawful." What makes the acquisition unlawful is injury to competition.
The injury should reflect the anticompetitive effect either of the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation. It should, in short, be “the type of loss that claimed violations . . . would be likely to cause.”
