Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Supreme Court shows a growing determination in its antitrust decisions to convert laws designed to promote competition into laws which regulate or hamper the competitive process. Succeeding interpretations of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts–and, by infectious contamination, the Sherman Act–demonstrate an increasingly apparent disregard for the central purpose of antitrust, the promotion of consumer welfare through the promotion of a competitive market process. Now, in Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co., the Supreme Court has used section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act to strike directly at price competition itself.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ward S. Bowman (1967) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: