Sherman Antitrust Failure

1786 Words4 Pages

Towards the end of the 19th century, three factors enabled the second industrial revolution. Improvements in communication and transportation allowed for greater shipments of products and raw materials, the development of electricity provided a cheaper source of energy, and most importantly, major corporations emerged as a result of new consumer and industrial goods. The development of science and technology, combined with increasingly capitalist markets had given rise to modern corporations that controlled overwhelmingly large portions of a certain industry within the nation. However, these larger businesses were a major source of corruption, as they often harmed smaller businesses and limited competition and economic growth. To take a …show more content…

Without precise definitions, US Courts were unable to effectively “give precise legal meaning to the law” (Sherman go.galegroup.com). This meant that the court could rule in favor of large corporations that infringed on antitrust laws, such as in United States v. E. C. Knight Company. Additionally, failure to mention labor unions had a particularly devastating effect. Employers continuously used the Sherman Antitrust to take down the efforts of labor unions and to suppress workers who attempted to take a stand against corporations. Most court cases ruled in favor of the employers, further halting union activities. By the beginning of the 20th century, the Sherman Antitrust had failed in every aspect of its original …show more content…

In an attempt to decrease competition in the computer technology industry, Microsoft had violated the Sherman Antitrust. In the 1998 case of U.S. vs. Microsoft, the Microsoft company was charged for anticompetitive and monopolistic practices that violated antitrust laws. The plaintiff had claimed that Microsoft had engaged “in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power” (Excerpts) which went against Section 2 of the antitrust law. Microsoft had also allegedly violated Section 1 by “tying its browser to its operating system and entering into exclusive dealing arrangements” which was ruled as a “combination… in restraint of trade or commerce” (Excerpts). The Court ruled against Microsoft, exemplifying the ability of the Sherman Antitrust to curb unethical and illegal monopolistic operations even in modern

Open Document