Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
This antitrust thing will blow over.
I'm for strong antitrust enforcement.
I think we need to have stronger antitrust enforcement.
Regardless of the industry, antitrust law is meant to benefit consumers - not competitors.
As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid.
From search and books to online TV and operating systems, antitrust affects our daily digital lives in more ways than we think.
The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice should take a long, hard look at the standard publishing contract.
Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow.
Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.
The standard formulation on remedy is that it ought to cure past violations and prevent their recurrence. That's what antitrust is all about.
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.
Changing technologies, changing marketplaces, and even changing trends in anti-competitive practices have all presented challenges to antitrust enforcement.
The history of antitrust law enforcement shows that successful antitrust prosecutions have often strengthened and brought vitality to extremely large companies and businesses.
Most Americans don't think about antitrust law when they look at their cable bill, flip channels on TV, or worry about what their favorite website knows about them. But they should.
The testimony and the documentary evidence produced by the Government demonstrate that the Bell System had violated the antitrust laws in a number of ways over a lengthy period of time.
In Europe, we have three tools when it comes to fair competition. One is antitrust, one is merger control, and the third is state aid control. And the third you don't have in the States.
I have the most profound respect for the Department of Justice and the FTC. We in Europe are a younger and I would say junior institution to the historical antitrust experience of the US.
The federal government has shown little willingness to stand up to corporate monopolies, and use its powers under the existing antitrust statutes, including the powerful Clayton Act and Sherman Act.
The antitrust litigation currently in the federal courts in the U.S. against Monsanto will be the test case in the life sciences, just as the Microsoft case was the test case in the information sciences.
When I applied to law school, I wrote on my application that I wanted to do two things. One was to solve antitrust law's irregularities and problems, and the second was to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It's not in my mission to work against Euroskepticism; it's my mission to work for fair markets. In antitrust, what is at stake is, in some ways, as old as Adam and Eve because it is about greed, to get more.
As attorney general, I would work with my colleagues in other states to launch a major antitrust investigation to look into the ways in which Facebook and Google are wielding and may be abusing their duopoly powers.
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.
Existing antitrust law in the United States addresses mainly the harm from price gouging, not the other kinds of harm caused by these platforms, such as stifling innovation and undermining the institutions of democracy.
There's no doubt we need stronger antitrust enforcement. We shouldn't allow Amazon to privilege its own products on its platform, and we should make sure they're not using sellers' data, but the E.U. is not a model for America to copy.
With less regulation, I think you would see growth come back. Of course, there are situations where you need regulation. Antitrust regulation, for example, is a good idea because you want competition. But beyond that, it gets very difficult.
Like other antitrust agencies we make our assessment of a merger or antitrust case based on its impact on our jurisdiction, and not on the nationality of the companies. This is exactly what the U.S. antitrust agencies, the Justice Department and the FTC, do.
A significant piece of the wealth that the NFL owners garner is a result of the enormous TV revenues they get - and those revenues are supported by a legislatively granted exemption from the antitrust laws that has been made applicable to sports leagues, primarily the NFL.
Under the Constitution, federal law trumps both state and city law. But antitrust law allows states some exceptional leeway to adopt anticompetitive business regulations, out of respect for states' rights to regulate business. This federal respect for states' rights does not extend to cities.
I'm just saying the producers and people who work on music are getting left out - that's when it starts getting criminal. It's like you're working hard, and you're not receiving. In any other business, people would be standing before Congress. They have antitrust laws against this kind of behavior.
Who can complain about the price that Google is charging you? Or who can complain about Amazon's prices; they are simply lower than the competition's. And that's why I think we need to shift back to a more Brandeisian conception of antitrust, where we consider values other than simply efficiency and low prices.
The fruits of the economy and all the advantages of technology and globalization have gone far more to the investor class and the professional class and not as much to the working class. Partly because of the loss of labor unions, partly because of things like a lack of antitrust enforcement, policies that have privileged shareholder returns.