What is antitrust laws? Antitrust laws are in place to prevent unlawful mergers and business practices. We often see big time companies seeking ways to secretly monopolize so that they can dominate the market and out perform their competitors. Apple, Microsoft and Google have all attempted this, and failed.

Guided Response:Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your response is substantive:Agree or disagree with your classmate’s position. Defend your position by using information from the week’s readings or examples from current events1. Hi class,As a private non-profit educational institution, the university is not required to register with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) as outlined by the Securities Act of 1933 (Seaquist, 2012). According to O’Connor (2014), “the Securities Act was designed to protect investors and increase investor confidence in the market through a system of “full and fair disclosure of securities sold in interstate and foreign markets.”The Securities Act of 1933 does differ for a for-profit educational institution, than a non-profit in the Securities Act. The for-profit educational institution would be required to register with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) prior to the offering or sale of any securities (stocks). The institution would have to include all required element of the registration process and written in plain language (Seaquist, 2012). ReferenceO’Connor, S. (2014). The Securities Act of 1933. Brooklyn Law Review, 79(3), pp1233-1264.Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.2.We have learned that regulations must be file through regulation state agreement before it can be sold or offered mail or interstate commerce. As stated in the text, Seaquist, G. (2012), there are some limited exemptions to the requirement that new securities be registered with the SEC prior to their being offered to the public. • According to the Securities Act of 1933, the following securities are exempt from registration:• All bank securities sold prior to July 27, 1933; • Commercial paper (such as checks, drafts, notes, and certificates of deposit) with a maturity date of not more than nine months; • Government-issued securities; • Securities issued by nonprofit religious, charitable, educational, benevolent, or fraternal organizations; • Securities issued by a bank or savings and loan; • Securities issued by common carriers regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission; and • An insurance policy or an annuity contract. Yes, it will be required to register if the institution decides it would like to do business in all 50 states. This regulation falls under the Rule 147. As stated in the text, under Rule 147, securities offered for sale solely in one state by a company that does at least 80% of its business in the state are also exempt from filing. State securities regulations, however, may require the company to file with the SEC.Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.3. Hi class,By the authoritative language of Section 7 of the Clayton Act of 1914, yes, the $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T would have violated the antitrust law. Section 7 states, “That no corporation [AT&T]engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation [T-Mobile]engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition [Verizon and Sprint]between the corporation [T-Mobile] whose stock is so acquired and the corporation [AT&T]making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce (Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914, 2009). This merger would have combined two of the top four wireless cellular carriers surpassing Verizon and Sprint, respectively, creating the nation’s largest cellular network by owning 43% of market share (Grunes & Stucke, 2011). According to Sharis Pozen, Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for antitrust, “Had AT&T acquired T-Mobile, consumers in the wireless marketplace would have faced higher prices and reduced innovation” (De La Merced, 2011). As well, the acquisition could possibility layoff employees from both companies, which would not be good for those individuals, and local and national economies. ReferenceClayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914 (2009). Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914, 1.De La Merced, M. (2011, Dec 19). AT&T Ends $39 Billion Bid for T-Mobile. Deal Book. New York Times. Retrieved on 22 August 2014 from, .nytimes.com/2011/12/19/att-withdraws-39-bid-for-t-mobile/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0″>http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/att-withdraws-39-bid-for-t-mobile/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0Grunes, A. P., & Stucke, M. E. (2011). Antitrust review of the AT&T/T-mobile transaction. Federal Communications Law Journal,64(1), 47-85. Retrieved from.proquest.com/docview/1033571283?accountid=32521″>http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033571283?accountid=325214.Antitrust laws are in place to prevent unlawful mergers and business practices. We often see big time companies seeking ways to secretly monopolize so that they can dominate the market and out perform their competitors. Apple, Microsoft and Google have all attempted this, and failed. The courts decide which ones are legal and which are legal. According to The Antitrust Laws (n.d), “the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up” (para. 1). I believed that if AT&T would have merged it would have created sort of a monopoly and competitors like Sprint would have suffered significantly. AT&T argued that the merge wouldn’t affect nationwide prices, which is insane. Their only big competition would have been Sprint and to stay afloat they would have had to match AT&T prices. According to Morita (2011), “Critics of the deal said it would eliminate an aggressive price competitor, driving up subscription costs. T-Mobile’s monthly wireless plans are $15 to $50 cheaper than comparable AT&T plans, according to an analysis by Consumer Reports” (para. 10). The merge in my opinion would have created unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices, which are all direct violations of antitrust laws. Aside from the Justice Department influences, I personally think this would have been unfair to Sprint and other small mobile compeititors. The Antitrust Laws | Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from .ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws”>http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-lawsMoritz, S. (2011, December). AT&T Pulls $39 Billion T-Mobile Bid After U.S. Opposition – Businessweek. Retrieved from .businessweek.c/news/2011-12-19/at-t-pulls-39-billion-t-mobile-bid-after-u-s-opposition.html”>http://www.businessweek.c/news/2011-12-19/at-t-pulls-39-billion-t-mobile-bid-after-u-s-opposition.html