Antitrust Guide for International Operations |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
aff'd affect U.S. agreement American company American firm American Timken ancillary anticompetitive arrangement cartel Clayton Act compete competition Corp corporation Country defense Department of Justice develop Discussion distributor doctrine domestic market enterprise essential facility exclusive grantback fact factual inquiry foreign firm Foreign Sovereign Immunities German licensee Glint Guerlain Hot Chip illegal illegal per se Import Metals industry involved joint venture know-how license licensor limited Maverick Oil merger monopoly National National Lead Co Noerr-Pennington doctrine Offshore original patent overseas parties patent percent personal jurisdiction potential entrant prohibition relevant restriction Roller Bearing Section selling Sherman Act significant Sovereign Immunities Sovereign Immunities Act substantial Supp Supreme Court territorial allocation territorial restraint tie-in Timken Roller Bearing Topco Associates Trade Cas trademark transactions U.S. antitrust law U.S. commerce U.S. firms U.S. market U.S. patent United States market violate X-metal X-ore
Popular passages
Page 17 - Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
Page 57 - commercial activity" means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
Page 20 - The intimate association of the principal American producers in day-to-day manufacturing operations, their exchange of patent licenses and industrial know-how, and their common experience in marketing and fixing prices may inevitably reduce their zeal for competition inter sese in the American market.
Page 11 - Nor do we find any support in reason or authority for the proposition that agreements between legally separate persons and companies to suppress competition among themselves and others can be justified by labeling the project a "joint venture.
Page 34 - United States v. Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., 100 F. Supp. 504 (SDNY 1951); United States v.
Page 16 - States, or (2) any other proposed acquisition or merger or consolidation under this section whose effect in any section of the country may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly...
Page 30 - Supp. 41, 219 (D.Del. 1953) , aff'd, 351 US 377 (1956) . The case law is reviewed in M. Adelman and E. Brooks, Territorial Restraints in International Technology Agreements After Topco, 17 Antitrust Bull. 763 (1972) . 56/ The Supreme Court, dealing with a similar balancing process In...
Page 2 - Applicable Antitrust Laws The US antitrust laws are the foundation of our broad national commitment to competition based on efficiency — to providing consumers with goods at the lowest price that efficient business operation can justify, and to allowing enterprises to compete on the basis of their own merit. The most relevant provisions are still Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, enacted in 1890. Section 1 bars "every contract, combination * * *, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce...
Page 6 - Questions of Jurisdiction The application of US antitrust law to overseas activities raises some difficult questions of jurisdiction. First, there is the question of subject matter jurisdiction: whether United States antitrust law applies to certain overseas acts which affect US commerce. The acts of US citizens in a foreign nation normally are subject to the law of the country where they take...
Page 5 - ... or capital should be allowed to compete on the merits and not be shut out by some restriction imposed by a bigger or less principled competitor. Often, the most objectionable private restrictions involve collective efforts by one group of competitors to exclude another from a particular market. 10/ The Department of Justice is and will continue to be strongly committed to these two policies. Their status as the cornerstones of our enforcement policy leads to the general conclusion that a very...