Federal Trade Commission, Divestiture: Hearing Before the Subcommittee for Consumers of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 69 - Upon the direction of the President or either House of Congress to investigate and report the facts relating to any alleged violations of the antitrust Acts by any corporation.
Page 131 - United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), affd per curiam, 347 US 521 (1954) Utah Pie Co.
Page 113 - Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 US 1, 31 S.Ct.
Page 9 - In this type of case we start from the premise that an injunction against future violations is not adequate to protect the public interest. If all that was done was to forbid a repetition of the illegal conduct, those who had unlawfully built their empires could preserve them intact. They could retain the full dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit from the unlawful restraints of trade which they had inflicted on competitors. Such a course would make enforcement of the act a futile...
Page 12 - Many people believe that possession of unchallenged economic power deadens initiative, discourages thrift and depresses energy; that immunity from competition is a narcotic, and rivalry is a stimulant, to industrial progress; that the spur of constant stress is necessary to counteract an inevitable disposition to let well enough alone.
Page 7 - January 1, 1948 ... the Sherman Act ... the Clayton Act, and the . . . Federal Trade Commission Act . . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.
Page 108 - Hearings before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 186-199 (1975) (testimony of John W.
Page 115 - To forbid the doing in the future of acts like those which we have found to have been done in the past which would be violative of the statute. Second — The exertion of such measure of relief as will effectually dissolve the combination found to exist in violation of the statute, and thus neutralize the extensive and continually operating force which the possession of the power unlawfully obtained has brought and will continue to bring about.
Page 123 - United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945); United States v.
Page 115 - It would be a novel, not to say absurd, interpretation of the Anti-trust Act to hold that after an unlawful combination is formed and has acquired the power which it had no right to acquire, namely, to restrain commerce by suppressing competition, and is proceeding to use it and execute the purpose for which the combination was formed, it must be left in possession of the power that it has acquired, with full freedom to exercise it.

Bibliographic information