欢迎来到51Due，请先 | 注册



Paper代写：American antitrust law

2018-06-08 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别：Paper代写范文

本篇paper代写- American antitrust law讨论了美国反垄断法。美国反垄断法的要义，是保护竞争而非保护竞争者。反垄断、维护公平竞争同适度发展规模经济之间的矛盾，常常使垄断的界定变得棘手。人人都希望兼得鱼和熊掌，所以，在面对此类两难选择时，须格外谨慎，尤其是在大企业合并之时。本篇paper代写51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

antitrust law,美国反垄断法,paper代写,代写,essay代写

The essence of America's antitrust law is to protect competition, not competitors.

Throughout our lives, we face all kinds of problems, and some of them have no real solutions. For George Marshall, the British economist, even though he was brilliant at the theory of price mechanisms, he was as helpless as ever in the face of difficult problems.

In 1890, Marshall discovered that the survival of the fittest and the fittest in the market competition would lead to the merger of enterprises, which in turn led to the concentration of resources to more efficient enterprises, thus leading to economies of scale. Economies of scale can reduce production costs and increase market share. However, in an objective way, the monopoly factor in the market structure is continuously strengthened, which damages the competition mechanism, deactivates the economy and finally kills free competition. This was the famous Marshall conflict.

Should we pursue economies of scale and stifle competition, or should we stop them in order to keep them alive? Marshall had no answer.

The contradiction between anti-monopoly, fair competition and moderate development of scale economy often makes the definition of monopoly difficult. Everyone wants to have both, so be extra careful when faced with such dilemmas, especially when big companies merge.

Questions about the duopoly between didi and Uber have been raised since the news of the recent merger of didi and Uber in China came as a surprise. In terms of data alone, after didi acquired Uber China, its market share reached over 90%. Although a large scale does not necessarily represent a monopoly, but such a large market share, it is inevitable to be questioned monopoly.

In addition to the size and amount of merger, what are the criteria for monopoly judgment? Should we support or oppose the big MAC's pursuit of economies of scale? Although different national conditions, we might as well look to move back to the end of last century in the United States, look at that time two antitrust case, may be able to more clearly understand the antitrust behind some of the things.

If drops for mergers and acquisitions Uber China the controversy is concentrated in the home, so, the end of last century, the world's largest aerospace company Boeing McDonnell Douglas merger and acquisition of the world's third largest aviation manufacturing company, has triggered the monopoly question in the world.

On December 15, 1996, Boeing announced that each madoff share was converted into 0.65 Boeing shares, with a total value of 13.3 billion us dollars.

Boeing's market mainly concentrated in the aspect of civil aircraft, and he is the leader in military aircraft, has a history of aircraft manufacturing 76 years, in terms of design and manufacture of fighter to have done, 70% of revenue comes from the government's military orders.

Mr Madoff initially resisted the takeover. However, the reality is that Mr Madoff's competitive strength is declining. In the field of military aircraft to the survival of the, 1994, the United States tamar rita and lockheed Martin to merge, lockheed Martin and want to share. Two years later, lockheed Martin high-altitude and annexation for $9.1 billion if lowe, "triad" annual sales of $30 billion, nearly twice as much as he.

The most lethal blow came from the defeat of the joint strike fighter. At the time, as the main equipment of the us air force, navy, Marine corps and British navy, the new generation aircraft "joint strike fighter" will have a demand of 3,000 aircraft, which is a big project.

Mr Madoff was determined to win the project. To boost the chances of a bid, Mr Madoff even brought in BAE, Britain's biggest arms-maker. The participation of British companies is bound to increase the possibility of placing orders for the royal navy. In early November 1996, Mr Madoff boasted that he was "going to win".

Surprisingly, the pentagon decided to make the big order to Boeing and lockheed Martin, and Boeing had been in the past 50 years or even no design of a successful fighter.

Mr Madoff lost out and accepted the Boeing deal. The combined company, with a total assets of $50 billion, is the world's largest maker of civil and military aircraft.

U.S. law clearly states that if the combined market share of the two combined companies is more than 1,800, the department of fair trade or the federal trade commission have the power to initiate investigations. At the time, Boeing and madoff had 60 percent and 15 percent of the market, respectively.

The American public was pessimistic at the time, and it was widely assumed that the merger would be harder to pass than the antitrust review.

By antitrust immunity documents submitted, however, the U.S. government unconditionally approved for three hours, and by reason is based on the anti-monopoly law protection is the basic principle of competition rather than competitors.

They see civil aircraft manufacturing as a global industry, with strong competition from European airbus even if Boeing is the only us civil aircraft manufacturer. Moreover, the combination of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas helped preserve America's position as an aviation powerhouse.

The new Boeing, after the acquisition, accounts for nearly 100 per cent of the us passenger jet market and two-thirds of the world's passenger jet market. This has directly turned the world's aerospace industry into a three-pronged rivalry between Boeing, McDowell and airbus.

There is no doubt that airbus faces an unprecedented and serious threat. The world's second-largest aerospace manufacturer was founded in 1970 by Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom. At the time, U.S. companies, led by Boeing, accounted for 90 percent of the world market, and airbus was created to compete with U.S. companies like Boeing and madoff.

So when the European commission heard that Boeing and madoff were about to merge, it took a hard line.

In January 1997, the European commission began an investigation into Boeing's takeover of madoff. In may, it formally issued a note rejecting the merger. On July 16th experts from 15 eu countries urged the European commission to veto the merger.

Heads of government from the United States and major European countries are also involved in the conflict. For a while, a brewing trade war between American and European exporters was brewing.

Finally, on July 22nd Boeing had to make concessions: it promised to make concessions on patented technology. Undertake not to improperly interfere in the relationship between suppliers and other civil aircraft manufacturers; It promised that the quality of the civil aircraft after the acquisition of McDonnell Douglas would reach the same level as that of Boeing. A commitment to release an annual financial report to the European commission within 10 years from the original McDonnell Douglas civil aircraft manufacturing unit as an independent legal entity.

Europe later backed down and agreed to Boeing's takeover of Mr Madoff.

On August 4, 1997, the new Boeing company officially began operation. Thus, the sensational Boeing acquisition of the madoff case dust settled.

At Boeing's acquisition of his first year, subversive revolution took place in Internet field, computer is no longer a technical personnel and academic researchers "patent", this great invention to begin to enter homes, and this is all thanks to a silicon valley startups - netscape.

The great thing about netscape was that it invented the netscape browser, which was an epoch-making invention.

Before that, only a handful of people to be able to use words and complex instructions to connect to the Internet, but netscape broke the technical threshold, reduce the difficulty of the Internet, make the public Internet access.

The summer and fall of 1995 were the best time for the start-up, with 500 employees, five times the number at the start of the year. Revenue exceeded $40 million in the fourth quarter, up 100% from the previous quarter.

Less than 16 months old, the company went public on nasdaq. Shares in netscape opened at $14 on the first day of its IPO on Aug. 9, 1995, before topping $75 at one point. The Wall Street journal at the time marveled that it took gm 43 years to reach a market value of $2.7 billion, while netscape took "about a minute."

Is strength of netscape, became "eyesore" on the IT industry giant Microsoft, Bill Gates quickly realized that the browser in the field of large market, then use the "killer app" : call thousands of programmers, developed the first generation of IE browser within a week, and equipped with in the Windows system, provided free of charge to customers.

The shock was huge and painful, and it ended up killing netscape. In just two years, netscape's market share fell from 80% in early 1996 to 38% in 1998. In the end, netscape was unable to fend off Microsoft's onslaught and was bought by aol.

Microsoft won the browser wars, but its bundling has caught the attention of the us department of justice.

On October 20, 1997, the district of Columbia, the federal court against Microsoft in the operating system used in the field of monopoly, improperly require personal computer makers to install the IE browser, deprived of the user's choice.

In fact, Microsoft development speed, as early as 1991 has attracted the attention of the us federal trade commission, given Microsoft's suspected violations of U.S. antitrust laws, the U.S. justice department had reached a binding agreement with Microsoft, Microsoft to PC makers to issue "Windows95" can not attach other conditions when using license. But the ruling did not prevent Microsoft from developing integrated products.

So is Internet explorer an integrated product of the Windows operating system, or is it "bundled"?

After all, the Windows operating system at the time accounted for more than 90 percent of the market, and if Internet explorer was forced to "bundle up" with the operating system, Microsoft would have violated that agreement. But Microsoft insists that Internet explorer is an upgrade to the operating system, not a bundle.

Finally, the district of Columbia circuit court ruled that because the justice department to come up with any evidence to refute, and "the court is not a software designer, should not be involved in the design of the high-tech products", Microsoft win the lawsuit.

However, the justice department, which lost the case, was reluctant to reprosecute Microsoft for violating antitrust laws.

On May 18, 1998, the U.S. department of justice and 20 state governments filed petitions in the district court of Columbia accusing Microsoft of violating antitrust laws.

After several rounds of Columbia, the federal district court hearing, and hearing of the debate, unveiled a 207 - page that differentiates, pointed out that "Microsoft to use its own enormous market power and huge profits, to strengthen the competition to hurt all adhere to the pursuit of creative company".

Federal judge Thomas Jackson said, Microsoft's Internet explorer and netscape, Microsoft in order to defeat opponents, use their monopoly position in the field of the operating system, will be bundled with the Windows operating system, IE has a monopoly.

In the face of monopoly, the traditional approach of the us federal court is to conduct mediation and consultation first. However, the mediation failed because the two sides were too far apart. In the end, the federal district court ruled that Microsoft is engaged in the "exclusive, anti-competitive and predatory behavior to maintain its monopoly rights", in an attempt to monopolize the web browser market, violated the Sherman antitrust act.



  • 05年成立，已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 保证原创，支持检测