| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | |
| rdfs:comment | - Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act provides in pertinent part: Section 2 establishes three offenses, commonly termed "monopolization," "attempted monopolization," and "conspiracy to monopolize." Liability under Section 2 requires
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| dbkwik:itlaw/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| abstract | - Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act provides in pertinent part: Section 2 establishes three offenses, commonly termed "monopolization," "attempted monopolization," and "conspiracy to monopolize." Liability under Section 2 requires This provision represents a key component of U.S. antitrust enforcement. Unlike Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 7 of the Clayton Act, Section 2 specifically targets single-firm conduct by firms with monopoly power or a dangerous probability of attaining such power. Firms possessing monopoly power can reduce output and charge higher prices than would prevail under competitive conditions and thereby harm consumers. The statutory language of section 2 is terse. Its framers left the statute's centerpiece — what it means to "monopolize" — undefined, and the statutory language offers no further guidance in identifying prohibited conduct. Instead, Congress gave the Act "a generality and adaptability comparable to that found to be desirable in constitutional provisions" and "expected the courts to give shape to the statute's broad mandate by drawing on the common-law tradition" in furtherance of the underlying statutory goals. It is "the provision of the antitrust laws designed to curb the excesses of monopolists and near-monopolists."
|
