Price fixing, Sherman Act, United States vs. GE Co., Ge-Westinghouse, Ethyl case, Facilitating practices
Antitrust and Trade Regulation | Commercial Law
While the Economic Policy Office was involved in a number of interesting and important matters during the six years I was Director (1973–1979), for the most part my involvement in individual investigations and cases was vicarious, i.e., supervising, supporting, and advising the staff economists assigned to the particular matter. The one major exception – a matter in which I became personally involved in an intensive way – was the General Electric (GE)-Westinghouse price signaling matter. In what follows, I provide a brief summary of what transpired in the GE-Westinghouse matter and then trace through some of the longer term consequences of the Department’s efforts. I conclude with a discussion of what I regard as a still unsettled issue in antitrust law – the precise legal meaning of “agreement” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the relevance of the GE-Westinghouse matter for trying to resolve that dilemma.
Hay, George A., "The Meaning of "Agreement" under the Sherman Act: Thoughts from the "Facilitating Practices" Experience" (2000). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 1146.
Published in: Review of Industrial Organization, vol. 16, no. 2 (March 2000).