Introduction
Antitrust laws are essentially a series of highly interpretable and ever-changing guidelines meant to encourage stable competition between businesses; in essence they are laws to protect against anti-competitive monopolists and conspiracies.
What is US antitrust law?
US antitrust law is essentially competition law. The term “antitrust” refers to the colossal trusts which were set up in the US in the late 1800s to control entire markets for petroleum, transport, banking, rail and other industry sectors. However, these trusts undermined free market economics by restricting competition, and the US antitrust laws were enacted to redress this issue.
Consequently it is fair to say that defending the right of businesses to compete is the true purpose of antitrust law. An anticompetitive practice that is harmful to a business or its customers will find no antitrust law protection. The antitrust laws come only into effect when competitors collude with one another to undermine legitimate competition; or one of more competitors attempt to exclude another competitor to create or preserve a monopoly on their position; or if a proposed merger, acquisition or exclusive supplier agreement threatens to reduce competition in an unacceptable manner. In each of these instances there is a threat that the predatory corporate could increase prices without this having an effect on demand since the consumer has no-one else to purchase the goods from. This, in effect, distorts competition by creating markets for goods that do not respect the law of demand – a basic economic law, which states that consumers purchase an increased amount of goods and services when the price decreases and buy less when it increases.
In order to protect the above aims, the antitrust laws are worded in an open-ended language so as to be able to respond if required to the actions of any predatory business. The antitrust laws effectively are the antitrust statutes which form the bare-boned frameworks behind the courts dressing for justice. Courts have tried to give meaning to these statutes in case law for over a century, often with contradictions in rulings. But it is only when cases are brought to court by an aggrieved private individual or a government prosecutor that the application becomes clearer and the statutes are given meaning to offer effective redress. It is therefore advisable for corporations to seek out the relevant antitrust experts who are experienced in dealing with such matters.
The antitrust statutes are generally believed to be unable to forbid anti-competitive conduct in advance of the occurrence of that conduct. On this basis the statutes fail the first test of all laws. However, despite this lack of law-like features, the statutes do offer effectual redress against voracious competitors. This is a similar concept to the UK law of equity, where remedy does indeed occur as and when required.
The US antitrust laws can therefore be said to be subjective with an ability to change with time. It is for this reasons that the antitrust statutes through the actions of the courts and the regulators can sufficiently protect legitimate corporates from predatory ones. Hence, the antitrust statutes are best viewed as a constitution for competitiveness, laying down broad principles rather than prescribed rules.
US Antitrust Law—aka competition law – originated from trusts in US in 1800s.
Antitrust laws composed of – widely drafted antitrust statutes – given meaning through case law.

http://www.legal.worldfinance.com/what-is-antitrust/#top