Talk:Antitrust: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Tony Cole
imported>Nick Gardner
(Some general suggestions)
Line 17: Line 17:


Sorry, rather silly laxness on my account.  I'm actually in the middle of constructing courses on both antitrust and securities, and apparently was not paying too much attention to what I was doing when I stuck the headers in.  You're absolutely right, it doesn't belong here at all.  I've changed it so that it simply refers to state antitrust laws.  [[User:Tony Cole|Tony Cole]] 08:45, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, rather silly laxness on my account.  I'm actually in the middle of constructing courses on both antitrust and securities, and apparently was not paying too much attention to what I was doing when I stuck the headers in.  You're absolutely right, it doesn't belong here at all.  I've changed it so that it simply refers to state antitrust laws.  [[User:Tony Cole|Tony Cole]] 08:45, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
== Some general suggestions ==
I am new to CZ, and I have no law qualifications, but I am an economist, and the author of a book on UK and European Union Competition Policy. And I have some suggestions.
My first suggestion is about the title. ''Antitrust'' is not a familiar term except to US readers, so I suggest either altering the title to ''Competition Policy'' or transfering the non-US material to a separate article.  Which would you prefer?
My second suggestion is about tailoring the content to the needs of the likely readership.
My guess is that the the readership will consist of:
        - businessmen,
        - policy-makers (and those who brief them,
        - practitioners of competition law, and,
        - economics students.
I suggest that none of those will be much interest in the ancient history of antitrust, but that most of them would appreciate more on its rationale - particularly rather more explanation of its ecomomic basis and its limitations. What do you think?
My third suggestion is the addition of some brief notes on the business practices that are affected by antitrust (mergers, entry barriers, predatory pricing etc) they could be part of the article or separate article(s) linked to the main artice. Which do you think would be the better?
That's all for now. I feel that I should await your reactions to these suggestions before doing any editing.
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 00:55, 11 September 2007 (CDT) Nick Gardner

Revision as of 23:55, 10 September 2007


Article Checklist for "Antitrust"
Workgroup category or categories Law Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Versuri 07:53, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Blue Sky Laws

I have removed this empty header from the article for now, as Blue Sky laws are generally focused on preventinf securities fraud, rather than serving any purpose which particularly serves the antitrust regime. They should really be the subject of their own article, in any event. Brian Dean Abramson 11:31, 12 May 2007 (CDT)


Sorry, rather silly laxness on my account. I'm actually in the middle of constructing courses on both antitrust and securities, and apparently was not paying too much attention to what I was doing when I stuck the headers in. You're absolutely right, it doesn't belong here at all. I've changed it so that it simply refers to state antitrust laws. Tony Cole 08:45, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Some general suggestions

I am new to CZ, and I have no law qualifications, but I am an economist, and the author of a book on UK and European Union Competition Policy. And I have some suggestions.

My first suggestion is about the title. Antitrust is not a familiar term except to US readers, so I suggest either altering the title to Competition Policy or transfering the non-US material to a separate article. Which would you prefer?

My second suggestion is about tailoring the content to the needs of the likely readership. My guess is that the the readership will consist of:

        - businessmen,
        - policy-makers (and those who brief them,
        - practitioners of competition law, and,
        - economics students.

I suggest that none of those will be much interest in the ancient history of antitrust, but that most of them would appreciate more on its rationale - particularly rather more explanation of its ecomomic basis and its limitations. What do you think?

My third suggestion is the addition of some brief notes on the business practices that are affected by antitrust (mergers, entry barriers, predatory pricing etc) they could be part of the article or separate article(s) linked to the main artice. Which do you think would be the better?

That's all for now. I feel that I should await your reactions to these suggestions before doing any editing.

Nick Gardner 00:55, 11 September 2007 (CDT) Nick Gardner