The history of antitrust law enforcement shows that successful antitrust prosecutions have often strengthened and brought vitality to extremely large companies and businesses.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.
Changing technologies, changing marketplaces, and even changing trends in anti-competitive practices have all presented challenges to antitrust enforcement.
From search and books to online TV and operating systems, antitrust affects our daily digital lives in more ways than we think.
Once I really got into securities fraud prosecutions, I came to realize how central they were to the maintenance of a free market and how, in many ways, they are far more important to the welfare of our society than many of the more sensational criminal cases that one hears about.
The 10 largest antitrust law firms in the United States have gone into the federal courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.
Antitrust is the way that the government promotes markets when there are market failures. It has nothing to do with the idea of free information.
The standard formulation on remedy is that it ought to cure past violations and prevent their recurrence. That's what antitrust is all about.
If you change the rules of the market, you can be more successful than your competitors.
A business of high principle attracts high-caliber people more easily, thereby gaining a basic competitive and profit edge.
Regardless of the industry, antitrust law is meant to benefit consumers - not competitors.