Talk:Competition law

Introduction

Which sources have been used for it? -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere, lost in the ideological battles above, someone deleted the references I'd written in! If you look back in the histories you'll find them. But it appeared that one person in particular didn't like it! Please do put'm back in. Wikidea 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Post war consensus and European Union law references

Can anybody show me references for these sections? Linking to main article just is not enough, one needs to supply refs localy.--Kozuch (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Section names

I suggest simplifying the main section names - removing "Competition law" from them.--Kozuch (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to match the MOS, "Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy". Cretog8 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing material

User:Kozuch keeps adding tags on two sections saying there aren't references. I referred him to WP:CITE, and pointed out there are loads of references (i.e. the links to the specific statutes and articles of the EC Treaty), that the whole thing is in summary style anyway, but I'm not sure he's going to listen. Would anyone like to comment on what they feel is lacking? And then would they like to do it themselves? As it stands I think that just moaning is singularly unproductive. Wikidea 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality check

From my reading of few sections of the article there seems to be some POV problems. For one article seems to be written from perspective that more regulation is better. For example, in section Post war development it is stated that "Commonwealth countries were slow in enacting statutory competition law provisions." Why "slow", why not "reluctant" or something else? Also, there seems to be a lack of criticism for concept of "competition law" in general and it seems to lack any criticism of its application in practice. I'm pretty sure there were many examples where competition laws were used to stifle completion instead of supporting it, and examples of market dominant firms that simply lost its place in the market without any government intervention. In short, my impression is that this article was written from viewpoint of eager anti-trust lawmakers while viewpoint of business is neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to change the word to "reluctant". I think that the theory section offers people's criticisms already: it's bad Wikipedia policy to have "criticism" sections if that's what you mean. Which viewpoints of business did you have in mind? Wikidea 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a brief search and in my opinion we should include more material like this:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

I don't propose criticism section, because I'm not a fan of them either, but something more benign like The Effects of Competition law. Also, antitrust paradox should definitely get a mention in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you done anything yet? I'm taking down the tag. It's only you who's worried, and now that you've done your neutrality check, and told us what you're going to do, all you need to do it do it. It would, though, I suggest that if you knew a bit more about the subject than what you find on google. :) Wikidea 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly is it a bad policy to have "criticism" sections? As a reader I've always found them quite useful, as they make it easy to find whatever controversy/criticism there is about the subject at hand, so that one wastes less time understanding both sides, and so that a person that isn't aware that the subject has been significantly criticized is more easily made aware that is was and why it was.

If I hadn't the habit of reading the talk pages on wikipedia whenever articles don't sound right, I would've went away thinking this article was biased in favor of antitrust laws, because I saw no "criticism" section. I would never guess the Theory section included criticism, but rather that it merely explained in more depth the theory behind these laws, which doesn't require the inclusion of criticism of the theory. -- Skaruts (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRITS explains why "criticism" sections are to be avoided. I only read the Theory section, but criticism is integrated well there. Abierma3 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it explains why they ought to be avoided as much as it simply describes the opinions certain editors hold against them, while still accepting that they are sometimes justified. Neither does it tackle my arguments. Moreover, I would like to know how they would objectively define "bad writing".

I argue, again, that they're quite useful for research, or to refer someone specifically to alternative points of view. A good example that I've encountered before would be the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) article (or even the DSM-5 article), which allowed me personally to not have to filter out all the information irrelevant to my research and to find sources more effectively. As with the DSM, competition/anti-trust laws have received quite significant criticism from many notable critics.

And again, I also argue that a section called "theory" is not an obvious place to expect to find criticism (refer to 2nd paragraph of my previous comment). -- Skaruts (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

There has been no consensus to delete the image of the cartoon from the top of the page. It ought to remain there until otherwise agreed. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind; placing it at the section on US law is probably best. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You might remember that there was originally an entirely different picture there (or the DOJ building I think). I put that one in, because I thought it was by far the most competition law-specific image I could find. It's just good article practice to have a picture in the introduction. I don't really mind at all that that one isn't there, but I think one (or both) of should put one in that you do like. Surely that's only fair, and more constructive. Wikidea 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we should find something to stick in the introduction. I'd like this to make Featured Article status some day. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some legal scholars have found that ..."

I've added that clause before the citation to Bork's text. I think that is a decent compromise and accurately reflects the current status, without granting any side of the debate undue weight. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm a "legal scholar" myself, so I hope that I know what I'm talking about. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're a legal scholar! And that you're being helpful. In fact I don't mind Bork being in there, and this skiff is part of the fact that the article is far from finished: the intro should of course summarise the theory section. Might I suggest attempting that? Wikidea 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot what I'd actually written in the intro. It works better now (you might notice that the intro was cleverly designed to be the reverse of the page's structure!) Wikidea 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ownership issues still?

No article on Wikipedia is ever finished, so bristling at changes to a "far from finished" article is especially strange.

This comment is not helpful. I don't think anyone is accusing you of changing the meaning on purpose, but the sentence you proposed does have a different meaning. One would believe that Bork is accusing antitrust laws of necessarily helping inefficient competitors. No, he's not; in the United States, helping small competitors was one of the only coherent themes of pre-1970s antitrust law. Instead he's saying that consumer welfare is harmed when inefficient competitors are protected, ect. Anyhow, it's better to discuss these issues than make threats. Cool Hand Luke 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to give you a lesson on the use of the future subjunctive tense. But I appreciate that in America - and for some Americans - grammatical usage is not as sophisticated. I also appreciate that you didn't just revert like a complete tool. As for your assertion about ownership issues, I call an article finished when I've put all footnotes into a sensible format, made it read properly straight through. I think that you should probably pay attention to the fact that the page did not exist before I came along. Wikidea 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I say that 14 months is long enough for an article to leave your womb. It can, should, and must be edited by others. Let it happen, and stop making personal attacks. (Good to know I'm not a complete tool. Thanks.) Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, duh, but that doesn't mean that I should stand by while it's messed up by complete tools. Oh, and if you were referring to my grammar comments, I protest, that entirely was not a personal attack. It was an attack against a sizeable proportion of your country. :) Wikidea 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags

The problems I listed in Talk:Competition law/Old still, for the most part, have not been addressed, yet the tags were removed. THF (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for tags

The vast majority of these were suggestions made in June 2007; only a few of them have been resolved. I've added new ones. This is, believe it or not, not a complete list.

1. The lead, and much of the article, fails to acknowledge the fundamental split between American antitrust law (protect competition, maximize consumer welfare) and European competition law (protect competitors).
2. No acknowledgement in the lead that Chicago School view of competition law is dominant theory behind US federal antitrust law, or the huge shift in American competition law between 1977 and 2007.
3. No mention of the controversy over global antitrust enforcement. See Richard Epstein on the subject.
4. No mention of Chicago School critique of leverage theory of anticompetitive behavior; instead tying is taken as example of anticompetitive behavior: "One case in point could be a software company who through its monopoly on computer platforms makes consumers use its media player" violates NPOV -- it is not unanimous opinion that this is anticompetitive. E.g., Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 05-3344 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J.).
5. "A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse." is a very controversial proposition, but there is no acknowledgement of that.
6. Competition law history section also inaccurate and pro-intervention POV
7. "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended." -- cite needed. Seems quite POV.
8. Mischaracterization of Chicago School views throughout article
9. That ellipses in the description of the New Law changes the meaning completely and renders the quote incoherent.
10. The line about "libertarians" and price-fixing is not accurate and contradicted by the footnote, which merely talks about a school of New Critics, and argues that fellow libertarians should oppose price-fixing. Not clear to me that New Critics merit more than a sentence or two, if that much, under WP:WEIGHT, but they definitely shouldn't be held to be representative of libertarians.
11. "When firms hold large market shares, up to one hundred percent, consumers are probably at risk of paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than if the market were competitive." - unclear meaning, and very poor explication of problem of market power, as well as conveying disputed POV that market share = market power
12. "However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get." obvious POV problem, inaccurate, and unencyclopedic
13. "The late Harvard Law School Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork's preference for non-intervention." That Areeda and Bork participated in a particular Supreme Court case seems irrelevant trivia; economists file briefs in just about every US Supreme Court antitrust case in the last thirty years.
14. Predatory pricing section unbalanced and violates NPOV.
15. The entire "Dominance and monopoly" section is written from an EU perspective, without any acknowledgement of the more nuanced USA antitrust law perspective.
16. No acknowledgement of criticism of price discrimination law and the de facto abandonment of that cause of action in the US.
17. "An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export sugar that your company sells, but not to Irish customers who are selling in the same market as you are in." does not parse, and is probably inaccurate once written to parse.
18. No discussion of the importance of market definition, which, in the US at least, is fundamental to determining market power.
19. No acknowledgement of the central tenet of 21st-century American antitrust policy, as expressed by regulators and Spectrum Sports: "The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."
20. Eurocentric; EC-regulators' view of the world discussed, while contrary American views are not. (E.g., conglomerate mergers, where the EC decision to block the GE-Honeywell merger was roundly criticized by American regulators and academics. See discussion in conglomerate merger article.)
21. The "Public sector regulation" section is entirely Eurocentric, has no discussion of American views, and perhaps doesn't belong in this article at all: in the US, public utility regulation is considered a separate field from antitrust.
22. "Collusion and cartels" section written extraordinarily vaguely, has substandard discussion of the controversy over vertical agreements, and no mention of the extraordinary change in US law over the last thirty years with respect to vertical agreements. As with the rest of the article, the breezy tone both confuses the discussion and is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
23. Tacit collusion is not considered illegal price fixing in the US, e.g., Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, (though Posner argues that it should be).
24. The "contemporary issues" section discusses European views only. There are contemporary issues in American antitrust law. It's also unclear why this is in the theory section, as no theory is discussed in the subsection.
25. The "Neo-classical synthesis" section seems nearly wholly extraneous. It appears to violate the WP:NOR guidelines.
26. No mention of the Illinois Brick issue.
27. No mention of the overlapping state and federal antitrust regulation in the US federalist system.
28. There is a consensus that the article is too long. So I am unsure why there is adding extraneous trivia about Smith and Mill that has no relevance to competition law today. Break all this out into the history of competition law article.
29. The history of competition law section is far far too long, since very little of today's competition law is built on what was done before the late 19th century.
30. "In the 1930s, Americans' fear of big business and their impending loss of accountability initiated the most aggressive antitrust campaign in history" is factually false. The New Deal was very pro-cartel.
31. British Air price-fixing is trivia that doesn't belong in the article.
32. United States v. AT&T was not "public sector regulation" but a traditional antitrust case.
33. "A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before" is factually false or, at least, POV. Vertical mergers of monopolies can transfer economic surplus to consumers.
34. "Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge ... simply go ahead but face the prospect of demerger should the concentration later be found to lessen competition." is factually false in the US.
35. The extensive quotes of US statutes are not helpful, given that antitrust law in the US is largely a question of federal common law. The rule of reason is mentioned, but not explained, though it is critical to an understanding of US antitrust law.
36. No discussion of conflict between intellectual property law and antitrust.
37. No mention of Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
38. Unencyclopedic tone of original research throughout.
39. Lead is disjointed, does not flow at all.
40. Entire article poorly and unclearly written, with passive voice, turgid text, pronoun reference problems, and weasel words abounding, as are grammar and punctuation problems and non sequiturs and irrelevant trivia.

For these 40 or so reasons, I have added the {rewrite}, {expert}, {disputed}, {npov}, {globalize}, {weasel} and {originalresearch} tags. THF (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

• Comment on RFC I think THF makes a very good case above. The general presumption is that if a dedicated and earnest editor believes there is a NPOV problem, there probably is. Engage him directly, although it would probably be a good deal better for the tempers of all concerned if you worked on one issue at a time, instead of 40 (!) at once. Ray (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, but I think THF wrote this long list because naming a few examples were met with claims that those were isolated problems, then the flags removed. Cool Hand Luke 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on RFC First, quickly, I found this page only by following the request for an WP:NPOV review on the NPOV noticeboard. I have no specific opinion on the topic, and in order to properly address the question posed on the NPOV Noticeboard, which is only to resolve the disagreement between THF and Wikidea over how to handle the NPOV disagreement between them (and not to resolve the content disputes), I have not read through the article in an attempt to avoid forming my own opinion on who is right and who is wrong about the issues being discussed and thusly allowing my own bias to come into my opinion. Instead, I have only read through the talk page (both this current and the archived page), and have a couple of main comments:

1. THF - You provide a number of criticisms of the article as written, but you do not offer specific solutions for addressing these issues. As this topic is clearly important to you, as evidenced by the obvious amount of time you have spent tracking this article and commenting on the talk page, I would propose that your comments should address not only what you believe is wrong with a specific section of the article, but also to provide a specific proposal on how to fix it, which you have, for the most part, not done. Specifically, I suggest that, where you take issue with a specific sentence or paragraph, provide a proposed alternative wording to that sentence or paragraph. Where you have issues with a section not being included at all, I suggest that you offer some proposed wording for what should be included and allow other users to provide comments so that a consensus can be reached on whether to include the topic and how to phrase the section.
2. Wikidea - As I have said in my introduction, I have not read the article myself and thusly have no opinion on whether or not the article violates WP:NPOV requirements. However, I will say that, based on the comments provided by THF and by others within the talk pages, it is apparent that, true or not, there is a general opinion that the article needs some work in order to be NPOV. When this type of opinion exists, it is absolutely important to discuss these in a civil manner. Your personal attacks against THF are completely out of place here, as other users have raised concerns similar to his.
3. THF's employer has no bearing on this topic unless specific evidence can be provided either that a) THF himself has published comments suggesting his total opposition to this topic or b) the American Enterprise Institute's official position (not speculation based on their reputation as a conservative institution) on the topic. If this evidence can be provided, one could reasonable argue WP:COI. However, without this evidence, there is no valid reason to conclude a COI exists. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "specific" solutions; it's hard to see how I could be more specific without entirely rewriting the article myself. THF (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is to offer proposed verbiage for the section which you are questioning. What I have seen for the most part is that you provide commentary that something is wrong, biased, etc., but you do not offer proposed text. The most efficient way to resolve this type of dispute is, when you see a sentence/paragraph/section that you do believe is wrong/biased, is to provide a re-write of the section, wherein you provide the verbiage you would find acceptable, thereby offering a starting point for negotiations to reach an acceptable solution, which most likely falls somewhere in between what you would like to see and what Wikidea would like to see. Providing this suggested verbiage in the talk page would also give other readers the ability to provide comment in order to assist in the dispute resolution process. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, entirely rewriting the article. The tags and identification of the multiple problems are an intermediate step before I undertake that gigantic project. My comments should not be opaque to someone experienced in the field, but if you have specific concerns about my specific concerns, I'm happy to expand. THF (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the issue may be in light of what you and Wikidea perceive to be important to the article. For instance, one of your comments above says "No mention of the Illinois Brick issue." However, without providing a context of how you would like this to be brought up and in what section, it could be difficult to interpret your comment. For instance, do you want this included in the History section, the US Antitrust section, or elsewhere? I hope that provides a clear enough example of what I mean with my comments. As I have no specific knowledge of or interest in the topic and am here only to assist in resolving a dispute request, as posted on the NPOV Noticeboard, I will say in all honesty that I have no intention of reviewing each of your points one-by-one and providing comments for each about how you should elaborate. If you have a need for more detailed comments on a point-by-point basis, I regret that I will be unable to provide them. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As an EU-based practitioner, I would agree with all of THF's points raised above, and would be inclined to add another tag to the article, namely that it does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Credit to THF for proposing to rewrite the piece; it has so much wrong with it I wouldn't know where to begin. By the by, I also note that much of the article is a repetition of what is to be found at History of competition law which is too heavily weighted in favour of the anglo-saxon development of the subject. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has had a lot of opposition to it from the very beginning, something I honestly fail to understand. As far as I understood, at the beginning this article was meant to be an explanation mostly of European competition law, as the US was covered under Anti-trust. That is why you will find that the Dominance and Monopoly sections are EU-centric - they were written from a EU pov (and it was most likely taken from Craig de Burca's EU text and the other opus w/ a similar title). Now it has taken on the shape of an article that is supposed to cover the entire world, something it honestly can't do. Nor can we expect this article to serve as a comparative analysis of the US & EU system. It can merely touch on some key factors. Now, I reserve my opinion on all of the actual economic theory, as I am no expert there. By all means, correct what is wrong here.

I guess what I'm saying is that we all need to be clear on the objectives of this article. What is the overall aim of this article, what are we expecting readers to learn upon reading it? How much do you expect readers to understand about economic theory? What kind of an example is acceptable? e.g., I'm pretty sure the example about the software comes from a textbook....

Also, isn't a discussion of the intellectual property/competition law issue outside of the scope of this article? It has been touched on as a point of controversy in the WTO section, but we could write absolute reams on this issue. Imagine the size of the section if we introduced the public health TRIPS debate on comp law *alone* into this, nevermind the general question of it even existing under the WTO regimes. Just a few of my thoughts. --Sephui (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with quite a few points on THF's list, but point 1 is incorrect. The SIEC test and the practice of the European Commission only have the protection of the consumer in mind, and not the protection of competitors. SmilingBoy (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

THF works for the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing lobby group, and the reason he brings this here now is that he is engaging in an attempt to delete the tort reform article. While some of that list of 40 may be relevant, editors are advised that this is probably more about pursuing a grudge than anything else. He is not willing to engage in discussion, or any constructive, incremental change, but would simply prefer to see whole articles deleted. Also, don't be fooled into tthinking he is an expert on this, despite his bombastic, self righteous tone. Wikidea 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, much of what he has written may well be relevant for the US antitrust page. As I say, he is not interested in improving the encyclopedia, only trashing anything that doesn't conform with the views of his employers. Wikidea 14:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My employers don't have any views on the subject. But if you can tell me the official AEI position on Illinois Brick and Noerr-Pennington, which I think should be discussed in the article, I'd love to hear it. THF (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Caution WP:NPA and WP:AGF is directly implicated here. Engage on the merits, not on the person. Since THF is writing about general matters of law and politics and not anything in which he has a personal stake, WP:COI doesn't come into it. Ray (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Robert Bork citation makes no sense.

The following paragraph makes no sense whatso:

Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]

Allegedly Bork claims that “competition laws … [sometimes] … reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors”. That means that competition laws sometimes have exactly the opposite effect of what they’re intended to do. I find that a paradoxical statement that requires explanation. Or else the writer made a stupid mistake and didn't bother to proofread what he wrote, which is a more likely explanation.

I don't think even such a dimwit as Robert Bork would state something so outlandish without at least giving an example of what he meant. I had the misfortune to read some of his ramblings on economics, and I got the clear impression that he does not have the foggiest notion of what he's writing about. He uses economic theory as a blunt instrument. His thinking on economic matters is crude, ponderous and mechanical.

Bork is the Sayyid Qutb of conservatism (and just about as pig-headed as that worthy).

I won't even go into the dirt dished on him by the guy who started Media Matters, a right-wing libelist, Matt Something, the darling of the right, who switched sides when he was finally nauseated by the festering corruption of conservative politics. What he has to say about Bork’s political and judicial shenanigans shows that Bork is the closest thing to Josef Stalin that ever got within hailing distance of a Supreme Court job. In any case he's a heavy-duty dirtbag, and I reject his prattle on purely ethical grounds.

By the way, there are right-wing economists whom I respect, like Hayek and Demsetz§Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Mumbo-Jumbophobe.

When the competition laws protect competitors rather than competition, it hurts consumers. This is not a controversial proposition, and it is one that has been adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Separately, please review WP:NOT#CHAT. Your personal opinion about Bork is quite irrelevant. THF (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of modern competition law

I'm very much a novice in this field, however this article cites the US Sherman Act of 1890 as the origin of modern competition law.

The Canadian "Act for the Suppression of Combinations Formed in Restraint of Trade" (see http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/canusa12&div=9&id=&page=) was in 1889... this should at least be mentioned in the article.

216.121.218.12 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended"

In the United Stated antitrust sentence, one of the paragraphs states "The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended", without explaining why, or what the immediate effects were. Don't remember offhand myself... --Agamemnus (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find an article on a website for a division of the US National Archives regarding The Sherman Act. This act was created to break up large trusts that threatened consumer choice, and therefore, comsumer prices, through the bundling of all the different companies owned by the entity or individual under one umbrella 'trust'. The article I found only implies the "immediate effect" was to dismantle The Standard Oil Company. This and other companies were operated by the "robber barons" that had come to be in that era (ie: Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Morgan, to name a few). However, one can only assume, from this implication, that this was to be the "immediate effect" mentioned in this section. FYI, the article I used to make that assumption can be found at: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51 , a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) division of the National Archives of the United States. I think we need to get consensus before altering the article, though. There is nothing civil about Civil War.Let's Talk! 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

EU part

It needs to get the new TFEU articles numbers. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Restraint of trade in india" (sic)

I refer to the final sentence of the "Principles" section:

Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including "restrictive practices," "the law of monopolies," "combination acts" and the "restraint of trade in india"

Could someone who is familiar with the work at hand (Smith) tell us if this means India the country or some sort of 'india' commodity (rubber, ink, etc.)? Iain (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Badly Written!!

This page is suffering from ham-fisted editing that makes it appear to be written by someone who's first language is not english. Examples: under heading Theory, subheading Neo-classical Synthesis, "...or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to..." Will be reduce their output to? That is gibberish. And under heading Practice, subheading Dominance and monopoly, "This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[70] leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player..." an eventual fine of 'million', whatever that means... and I suspect there are more, I didn't read the whole page. I find it hard to believe this page was ever a 'former good article nominee', but one thing is for sure, unless editors of this page start proof-reading their edits, it will never again be nominated as a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.5.24 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QDuuptJY?url=http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf to http://www.cei.org/pdf/1615.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Competition law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202615/http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm to http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)