Suchergebnisse

During the past few years there has been extensive discussion regarding the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws and some attempts have been made to consider the matter in the context of public international law principles.' Notwithstanding objections raised by foreign governments to court orders and subpoenas directed to foreign corporations in relation to their activities abroad, some commentators still appear to consider that there are few, if any, limitations imposed by law upon such assertions of penal power. This position requires reexamination, and in undertaking a review it will be relevant to consider the nature and effect of new antitrust legislation in Europe.

The following articles, the work of the faculty of the School of Law, the Attorney General, two members of the Washington Bar and a student, constitute the first academic comment on the laws of 1961. For obvious reasons, these articles are not represented to the reader as a complete survey of the legislative session. Rather, they are a compilation of comments on acts which the writers have found to be important, timely, or merely interesting. The Antitrust section considers the Consumer Protection Act of 1961 and its impact on Washington antitrust law.

The Jones Chemical Company is considering its next purchase of the cardboard barrels in which it packages much of its output. The salesman from Smith Paper Products suggests that his firm be given preference, since it purchases large quantities of chemicals from Jones. He even hints that those purchases will be increased if Jones will make the "right" decision in regard to its orders. This prediction proves to be correct, after Jones purchases its barrels from Smith. These firms are engaging in a common business practice which has come to be called "reciprocity." This modern industrial version of the ancient practice of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" may seem to be an innocuous and almost inevitable concomitant of the relationships which develop between firms having frequent dealings with each other. However, careful analysis indicates that reciprocity may have harmful effects upon competition and may violate several existing antitrust statutes. Once these conclusions are accepted, even thornier problems arise concerning the economic desirability and legality under the present law of mergers which increase a firm's potential for inducing reciprocity. Moreover, in regard to both such mergers and reciprocity itself, areas of doubt exist for which federal legislation seems to be the appropriate remedy.