Can you give me a simplified explanation: what are antitrust laws in the US?
598555
Simple Answer: Non-existent.\n\nOkay enough of the smart stuff ... They are meant to make sure that no one company control a given market and drives out competition and has the ability to overcharge and underpay because there is no competition. Having said that, Microsoft is a monopoly, and so is Wal-Mart, but the people and the government refuse to acknowledge it.
394667
All Canadian laws to do with exporting\nAll UK laws to do with importing\nAll UK "FDA" laws\nAll UK business laws \n\nwhole bunch of other ones , I'm sure :)\n\nthere is a Canadian Fed export agency designed to help you, they even have ads on tv but I forget ? ids  edc - something like that, but they are government employees so I wouldn't get too excited about actually getting useful help , after lunch time or before 10 am EST ;);)
213886
Cities that have tried to make laws preventing door to door sales have had the laws struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on free speech grounds. However, there are usually state consumer laws that strictly govern sales made by these salesmen.
244415
The statutes are somewhat extensive, so it would be best for you to just read it for yourself. The relevant section is Article 7 at the site below.
454240
The following sites give the answer:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition\nhttp://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/ha191/slides/monopoly.ppt
877512
You'll have to provide a few more details...are you referring to the system of bribes to obtain contracts?  Or the system of monopolies?  Or the government tariffs against European goods to protect the higher American wages and to promote the growth of American industry?
147524
If it's orginal content there would be no law against it in the US that I'm aware of and you would just have to be aware of the content laws in your country. Of course legal matters should be discussed with an attorney that knows something about this topic.
1070839
I don't know all of the ins and outs, but here are some:\n\n-- b2b, there are fewer regulations and limitations.  If a deal goes south, they sue you.  With b2c, there are a lot more consumer protections\n-- ethically, you have limitations on marketing with b2c: advertising to kids, getting kids' personal information, making financial claims, etc.  \n-- with consumers, you've got sales tax (I think only Illinois is trying to collect online sales tax, but others are discussion it).  If they were to charge it, you've got MAJOR issues with figuring out local taxes (It's hard enough with retail companies with several locations)\n\n\nGood luck
298879
While the law typically avoids regulating prices, there are areas where it does occur.  \n\nSome states (like New York)set minimum prices on milk to protect small farms from extinction.  Cigarette prices are often regulated for the same reason.  \n\nStates will often have laws prohibiting price gouging in emergency situations.  I'm sure a number of gasoline distributors were investigated by Attorneys General last fall during the Hurricane Katrina fallout.  I know in New York when storms knock out power the Attorney General here gpes after retailers selling generators at outrageous prices.\n\nThe FTC has been involved with prescription drug pricing, but I don't think anything definitive has come of it.
403181
It limits competition. Meaning people might have to pay more for less, because another country make the cheaper and better version of the product. Although it is used to help support the domestic economy.
1110768
In medieval times, there were two court systems.\n\nCourts of law granted primarily monetary damages. Courts of equity granted primarily injunctions (orders to do or not do something). \n\nThis distinction has pretty much been eliminated in the US, where most courts can now grant relief at law or in equity, as appropriate to the claim. \n\nThe phrase "common law" generally refers to the decisions handed down by the courts, starting with the Old English common law, and more recently referring generally just to legal precedent derived from past cases. Common law decisions in the US govern interpretations of the law, as well as issues related to remedies at law (damages) and in equity. So, again, the distinction in the US has largely been eliminated.
295272
the less is the joint market power of oligopolists, the stronger is competition btw them, the better for consumers. the best variant is bertrand or price competition which gives efficient outcome.
405690
The laws will vary from city to city and state to state.  You didn't indentify where you live, so it is impossible to answer your question.
80588
Try FindLaw.com. It covers U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulation, U.S. Supremem Court decisions, and just a ton of other stuff. There is also a breakdown on state codes and regulation.
867344
One of the seminal cases on anti-suit injunctions, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984), provides a detailed analysis of comity. \n\nLaker filed an antitrust action in the United States against several defendants, including domestic, British, and other foreign airlines. The defendants filed suit in the United Kingdom seeking an anti-suit injunction barring Laker from proceeding with its action in the United States. Meanwhile, the district court granted Laker an injunction barring the defendants from proceeding in the United Kingdom. The D.C. Circuit upheld the importance of comity, stating that "comity serves our international system like the mortar which cements together a brick house." Id. at 937. However, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court:\n\n"Comity" summarizes in a brief word a complex and elusive concept -- the degree of deference that a domestic forum must pay to the act of a foreign government not otherwise binding on the forum. . . . However, there are limitations to the application of comity. When the foreign act is inherently inconsistent with the policies underlying comity, domestic recognition could tend either to legitimize the aberration or to encourage retaliation, undercutting the realization of the goals served by comity. No nation is under an unremitting obligation to enforce foreign interests which are fundamentally prejudicial to those of the domestic forum. Thus, from the earliest times, authorities have recognized that the obligation of comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act. Id.\n\nThere may be different views among circuits as to the relative importance to be given to comity in deciding whether to file an anti-suit injunction. Compare Quaak, 361 F.3d at 17 ("We deem international comity an important integer in the decisional calculus"), and Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 (anti-suit injunctions should be granted "only in the most compelling circumstances"), with Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) ("We decline . . . to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action").\n\nLaker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 also states that courts "have a duty to protect their legitimately conferred jurisdiction to the extent necessary to provide full justice to litigants. Thus, when the action of a litigant in another forum threatens to paralyze the jurisdiction of the court, the court may consider the effectiveness and propriety of issuing an [anti-suit] injunction".
573362
No, there is no such restriction on retail industry. But that SALE should not be to kill the competetion.If it seems to be to kill the competetion, there is competetion act to take care of it.
312544
what state? is it fed. district court,us supreme court? need more info and i can get it for you.