Microsoft: on Anti-Trust and Monopolies
Microsoft: On anti-trust and monopolies
(or How A Linux User Can Court Ostracism)
Introduction
In 1890, the US Congress passed the Sherman Act. Further, the Clayton Act was enacted in 1912. This was followed by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. These antitrust laws prohibit agreements in restraint of trade, monopolization and attempted monopolization, anticompetitive mergers and tie-in schemes, and, in some circumstances, price discrimination in the sale of commodities.
Thus, the goals of a free market controlled by individual choice and individual action were codified. Monopolies, cartels and discrimination were outlawed. Truly free markets mean more competition, more goods, more choices, lower prices and enhanced product quality. These are the result of individual initiative and Adam Smith's "invisible hand".
It is often said that the goal of every vigorous competitor is to achieve a monopoly and reap the resulting profits. While this may be true, the antitrust laws are not intended to punish successful companies simply because of their success or large companies simply because of their size. Because we want consumers to get the best for the least through the free market, only conduct that excludes competitors, stifles innovation, limits supply or raises prices is prohibited. Obviously, monopolies that are obtained by unlawful means are not allowed. But monopolies that are lawfully obtained, such as those with superior products, prices or management, are only liable if they abuse their monopoly power and exclude, stifle or limit competition. The current Microsoft case raises all of these issues.
The Case against Microsoft
Quite frankly, the fact that Microsoft has come to dominate such an important market is a bit unpalatable. Generally, that type of domination, however obtained, tends to reduce technological innovation, consumer choice and competition. However, we now come to the most crucial question, which can be summed up in two words:
(or How A Linux User Can Court Ostracism)
Introduction
In 1890, the US Congress passed the Sherman Act. Further, the Clayton Act was enacted in 1912. This was followed by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936. These antitrust laws prohibit agreements in restraint of trade, monopolization and attempted monopolization, anticompetitive mergers and tie-in schemes, and, in some circumstances, price discrimination in the sale of commodities.
Thus, the goals of a free market controlled by individual choice and individual action were codified. Monopolies, cartels and discrimination were outlawed. Truly free markets mean more competition, more goods, more choices, lower prices and enhanced product quality. These are the result of individual initiative and Adam Smith's "invisible hand".
It is often said that the goal of every vigorous competitor is to achieve a monopoly and reap the resulting profits. While this may be true, the antitrust laws are not intended to punish successful companies simply because of their success or large companies simply because of their size. Because we want consumers to get the best for the least through the free market, only conduct that excludes competitors, stifles innovation, limits supply or raises prices is prohibited. Obviously, monopolies that are obtained by unlawful means are not allowed. But monopolies that are lawfully obtained, such as those with superior products, prices or management, are only liable if they abuse their monopoly power and exclude, stifle or limit competition. The current Microsoft case raises all of these issues.
The Case against Microsoft
Quite frankly, the fact that Microsoft has come to dominate such an important market is a bit unpalatable. Generally, that type of domination, however obtained, tends to reduce technological innovation, consumer choice and competition. However, we now come to the most crucial question, which can be summed up in two words:
References: & Readings • Cass, Ronald A. and Hylton, Keith N., "Preserving Competition: Economic Analysis, Legal Standards and Microsoft" (1999). George Mason Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999 • Meese, Alan J., "Don 't Disintegrate Microsoft (Yet)" . George Mason Law Review, Vol. 9, 2001 • Sabbatini, Pierluigi, "The Microsoft Case" • Friedman, Milton, "The Business Community 's Suicidal Impulse", Cato Policy Report, March/April 1999, Vol. 21, No. 2 • Rothstein, Edward, "Wronging Microsoft", Commentary Magazine, Vol. 112, No. 2 September 2001 • http://www.moginlaw.com • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust