Committing Violations by Monopoly Powers

Certain controversies ignite the legal bodies regarding the major organization’s increasing monopolization status. According to Pearlstein (2004), any claims of occurring monopolization power require proof of price manipulation or any attempts to exclude competition in the market provided these are willful initiations and with maintenance of that power (p. 229). Monopoly claims are subjected not only during its exercise but mainly in existence, meaning even the stage dormancy commits violation however, the rule of exemption still applies to some scenarios.

Monopolization power that exists for a short period of time however, may not support the claims of monopoly (p. 231). Felony is the violation committed of the act of monopoly. However, there are certain limits and considerations analyzed in the ethical considerations in this law in order to balance the situation. This forms controversy among commercial and legal firms (McConnell & Brue 2004, p. 600). Ethical Considerations: Behavioralists and Structuralists The ethical considerations of these cases primarily divide the views in terms of the firm’s structure and the performance of these business organizations.

The two scenarios illustrated in the book of McConnell & Brue (2004), Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies, are analyzed in this section. In 1911, the issue of U. S Steel case has established a rule of reason in the court. The conditions are the increased size and evident monopolistic powers of the said firm. However, the firm has justified their claims in the court stating the presence of these powers is basically unintended. They have not caused any illegal actions among their minor competitors hence the court termed their case as “good trust” considering this not guilty.

On the other hand, the Aloe Case that has occurred in 1945 has possessed clear indication of monopoly since it has supplied 90% aluminum in the market. Such case has led into incapacitation the minor aluminum producers. The court has announced guilty and violation of Sherman act sec II is pronounced (p. 600). Structuralists view that the firm with most market shares are the legitimate target of this monopoly law since market competition are being affected. In this case, it is natural for the occurrence of such monopolistic behavior.

Suggestion of this group involves the splitting of this huge firm into smaller units providing improvement and quality of performance as well. This applies in the case of Aloe since their firm shares the biggest part in the market. In another point of view, Behavioralists view the large firms make their way to possess unintended monopolistic status. They view that this might be because of the quality of service, best products and reasonable prices rendered to the public. Such case, if proven to have absent competitive practices provides pardon from monopoly regulation of Sherman act (p.601).

REFERENCES Emerson, R. 2004, Business Law, Barron’s Educational Series, p. 485 Letwin, W. 1981, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act, University of Chicago Press, p. 3 McConnell C. R. & Brue L. 2004, Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies, McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 600-601 Olson, C. 1999, Job Centre: the ongoing demise of public monopolies in Europe, (Recent Rulings of the European Court of Justice), Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, p. 1-2