Why might a firm charged with violating the Clayton Act,section 7,try arguing that the product sold by the merged firms are in separate market?Why might a firm charged with violating section section 2 of Sherman Act trying convincing the court that none of its behavior in achieving and main training its monopoly was illegal.
Answer: Section 7 on the Clayton Act prohibits the winning on
stocks concerning competing corporations so the result would stand
less competition. toughness By arguing up to expectation the
products are sold into analyse markets, the solid is arguing so
much the obtained solid is no longer a competitor, yet to that
amount the winning will not limit competition.
Based of the ruling concerning the U.S. Steel case, not each and
every monopoly is in inversion over Section 2 about the Sherman
Act. permanency Only those as do inappropriately by using trying in
imitation of “monopolize, yet mix or intrigue … in accordance with
monopolize” are into violation.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.