Jim Barksdale Quotes

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.

Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow.

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 history of antitrust law enforcement shows that successful antitrust prosecutions have often strengthened and brought vitality to extremely large companies and businesses.

I'm for strong antitrust enforcement.

One of President Reagan's first and wisest initiatives was to effectively shutdown the anti-trust division of the Justice Department.

Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.

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.

You won't get sued for anticompetitive behavior.

The Sherman Act is similar in the economics sphere to the Bill of Rights in the personal sphere.

Lawsuits should not be used to destroy a viable and independent distribution system. The solution lies in the marketplace and not the courtroom.

I don't think we can go back to the old days. But I think that what the government needs to do is it needs to make sure that the pricing is fair, that you don't have monopolies out there, so that people don't have a chance to compete fairly.

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 standard formulation on remedy is that it ought to cure past violations and prevent their recurrence. That's what antitrust is all about.

In this country in colonial days the laws were very strict against combinations and contracts in restraint of trade. But here again there was a gradual amelioration of the laws, until co-operation was permitted along many lines, including division of territory, limitation of output, and even fixing of prices; provided always that, as a result of the co-operation, the combinations or contracts did not result in monopoly, were not general, were not immoral, and were not contrary to public policy.

The executive [President] could have saved the people from the appalling conditions which confront us today, if all the power of this government had been put forth to enforce the [Sherman] Anti-Trust law.

The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade. It rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.

Possible economies cannot be used as a defense to illegality. Congress was aware that some mergers which lessen competition may also result in economies but it struck the balance in favor of protecting competition.

All the authorities agree that in order to vitiate a contract or combination it is not essential that its result should be a complete monopoly; it is sufficient if it really tends to that end and to deprive the public of the advantages which flow from free competition.

In law school, I never understood [antitrust law]. I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then.

… businessmen must compete, but no one may win the competition. It is this aspect of antitrust which creates two standards, one for big business, another for small business. No matter how vicious the competition of the little fellow, the big fellow must not countercompete too hard.

President McKinley has not been unmindful of the evil of the commercial combinations which will always go by the misnomer "trusts." He did all that he could do to meet them under the law through the Department of Justice, and all that he could do to strengthen the law by recommendations to Congress

Competition is good for consumers. It provides more choices at better prices.

Regardless of the industry, antitrust law is meant to benefit consumers - not competitors.

In 1984, the Federal Trade Commission released a report that explained why taxis could charge customers exorbitant prices for dismal service. The simple reason, according to the 176-page study: lack of competition in the market. The culprit: local governments.