Antitrust Agreement Deutsch

In England, monopoly control laws and restrictive practices were in force long before the Norman conquest. [15] The Domesday Book reported that « Vorstahl » (i.e. preliminary work, the practice of buying back goods before they were put on the market and then inflating prices) was one of three expiration spurs that King Edward of the Confessors could carry out across England. [16] Concern for fair prices has also led to attempts at direct market regulation. Under Henry III, a law was enacted in 1266[17] to set the prices of bread and ale in accordance with the prices of cereals set by the Assizes. Among the penalties for the offences were bitterness, foreigners and Tumbrel. [18] A 14th-century statute called Waldaller « an oppressor of the poor and the community at large and enemies of the whole country. » [19] Under King Edward III, the status of the workers of 1349[20] fixed the wages of craftsmen and workers and decreed that food should be sold at reasonable prices. In addition to the existing sanctions, the law stipulated that overburdened merchants had to pay the victim twice the amount he received, an idea that, according to U.S. antitrust rules, was repeated in three times as much damage. Also under Edward III, the following legal provision prohibited combinations of trade policy. [21] The first setbacks also came from the first U.S. Supreme Court review of the statute against E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S.

1, 15 P. Ct. 249, 39 L Ed. 325 (1895). The Court objected to the challenge of a sugar trust fund that controlled more than 98% of the country`s sugar refining capacity and found that production was not an intergovernmental trade. That was good news for the trusts. If producers were exempt from the Sherman Act, they would have little to fear from the federal authorities. It was not until the late 1890s that the Court began to vigorously support enforcement, starting with prosecutions of railway cartels. Until 1904, about 300 large enterprises still controlled nearly 40 per cent of the country`s production facilities and influenced at least 80 per cent of its vital industries.

Over the next two years, the federal government received new complaints that Microsoft was again using anti-competitive practices.