In an earlier article in the FreeMarket, I questioned whether or not Joel Klein, who headed the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division during the Clinton administration's jihad against Microsoft, was doing so as a "public servant," or might there be a more personal agenda. We now have our answer: Klein was going for the big bucks.
Enforcement of intellectual property rights" can conflict with the rights of tangible property holders. When the WTO does it, the free market get a bad name. Illana Mercer explains.
Due to the weakening economy, the red-hot job market appears to be at an end. Employers are already handing out pink slips, giving rise to complaints about the "injustices" of the market system, particularly among younger workers whose careers have been furthered by an unusually long economic boom.
Some ninety percent of all antitrust lawsuits are litigated by the private antitrust bar, which is to say, they involve one company suing one of its rivals, as opposed to the government bringing the suit. As a rule, whenever one company sues a rival it is because the rival is charging lower prices or providing superior products and services. Antitrust lawsuits are meant to throw a monkey wrench into the smoothly-functioning gears of the competitive process, and are therefore inherently anticompetitive.
In a free market, it is wholly unwarranted. Brad Edmonds considers three cases.
Just as the antitrust suit seems to be burning itself out, the enemies of Microsoft have launched another sneak attack, writes Lew Rockwell.
During the seemingly endless debate over the government's treatment of Microsoft, the consensus seems to be that this is mostly a battle over ideas, including the role of government in economic matters. Whenever the subject of "self interest" appears, it usually deals with Microsoft's competitors that stand to gain from the destruction and looting of that software company.
The Heritage Foundation is no flaming libertarian organization. Not for them the radical privatization of such things as bodies of water, roads, even social security, much less courts, armies, and police.
Fifty years ago, the court broke the movie industry into two parts. The result was disastrous for consumers.
The Microsoft and WorldCom-Sprint cases show the need to distinguish legal from economic barriers.
