The following information about these laws is taken from Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer Guide. In many cases, large U.S. companies tend to deal with foreign antitrust law in foreign jurisdictions, independent of U.S. laws, such as in Microsoft Corp v Commission and, more recently, Google v. European Union, where companies have been heavily fined.  Questions have been raised about the consistency of antitrust law between jurisdictions where the same corporate antitrust behaviour and a similar antitrust environment are pursued in one jurisdiction but not in another.  Third, antitrust laws are amended if they are perceived as interference with the media and freedom of expression or if they are not strong enough. Newspapers subject to joint venture agreements enjoy limited antitrust immunity under the Newspaper Preservation Act 1970.  More generally, and in part due to concerns about cross-ownership of media in the United States, media regulation is subject to certain statutes, primarily the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission. The historical policy was to use the licensing powers of the state directly to promote plurality. Antitrust laws do not prevent companies from using the legal system or political process to try to restrict competition.
Most of these activities are considered legal under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In addition, state regulations can be immune under the Parker immunity doctrine.  On the other hand, Efficiency argues that antitrust law should be amended primarily to benefit consumers and not to pursue other objectives. Free market economist Milton Friedman explains that he initially agreed with the basic principles of antitrust law (breaking down monopolies and oligopolies and promoting more competition), but concluded that they do more harm than good.  Thomas Sowell argues that even if a superior company replaces a competitor, it does not follow that competition is over: antitrust laws exist to encourage competition between sellers, limit monopolies and give consumers more options. In the 1880s, hundreds of small short-distance railways were purchased and combined into huge systems. (Separate laws and guidelines have emerged regarding railways and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.) Proponents of strict antitrust laws have argued that to succeed, the U.S. economy would need free competition and the ability of Americans to start their own businesses.
As Senator John Sherman said, “If we do not want to endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of every necessity of life.” Congress almost unanimously passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which remains at the heart of antitrust policy. The law prohibits restrictive agreements for trade and abuse of monopoly power. It gives the Ministry of Justice the mandate to apply to the Federal Court for orders to put an end to illegal behaviour or to impose corrective measures.  [Original research?] Thomas DiLorenzo, a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, noted that the “trusts” of the late 19th century lowered their prices faster than the rest of the economy, and he believes they were not monopolists at all.  Ayn Rand, the American writer, provides a moral argument against antitrust laws. She believes that these laws fundamentally criminalize anyone who is committed to the success of a business and are therefore flagrant violations of their individual expectations.  These laissez-faire advocates suggest that only a coercive monopoly should be broken, that is, the continuous and exclusive control of a much-needed resource, good or service, so that the community is at the mercy of the controller and there are no suppliers of the same or substitute goods to which the consumer can turn. In such a monopoly, the monopolist is able to make price and production decisions without keeping an eye on competitive market forces and is able to limit production to consumer price reductions. Proponents of laissez-faire argue that such a monopoly can only occur through the use of physical coercion or fraudulent means by the corporation or state intervention, and that there is no case in which a coercive monopoly has never existed that was not the result of government policy. The antitrust environment of the 70s was inspired by the case of United States v. IBM dominates, which was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1969.
IBM dominated the computer market at the time by allegedly bundling software and hardware, as well as sabotaging sales and advertising fake products. It was one of the largest and longest antitrust lawsuits the DoJ has brought against a company. In 1982, the Reagan administration dismissed the case, and the cost and wasted resources were heavily criticized. However, contemporary economists argue that the legal pressure on IBM during this period allowed the development of an independent software and PC industry of great importance to the national economy.  Here is an overview of the three most important federal antitrust laws. The treatment of monopolies by law is perhaps the strongest in the area of antitrust law. Remedies can force large organizations to be crushed, subjected to positive commitments, impose massive sanctions and/or those involved can be sentenced to prison. Under section 2 of the Sherman Act of 1890, any “person who must monopolize or attempt to monopolize.” any part of trade or commerce between different States” commits a criminal offence.
 The courts have interpreted this to mean that a monopoly is not illegal in itself, but only if it was acquired through prohibited conduct.  In the past, when the possibility of legal remedies to combat market power ended, the Länder legislator or the federal government still intervened by taking control of a company`s public sector or subjecting industry to sectoral regulation (which has often happened, e.B. in the case of water, education, energy or health care). The Public Utilities and Administration Act goes far beyond the scope of antitrust treatment of monopolies. If the undertakings are not public and the regulations do not prevent the application of cartel law, two requirements for the criminal offence of monopolisation must be demonstrated. First, in a well-defined market, the so-called monopolist must have sufficient power over its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have exercised his power in a prohibited manner. The categories of prohibited behaviour are not closed and are theoretically contested. .