Monopoly and Competition

The leading victim of antitrust is cheering on an antitrust suit against AOL's "Instant Messenger," a product which is given away at no charge. Shawn Ritenour decries the hypocrisy. 

William Anderson answers an objection to his defense of Microsoft. 

It is time to refute claims of gas gouging and explain (once again) that not only were these price increases inevitable, but they have been specially packaged in Washington, D.C.

There's no difference between the orthodox socialist position on this company and Judge Jackson's. 

The rest of the world, envious of America’s economic success (thanks in no little part to companies like Microsoft), must be marveling at such a stupendous act of stupidity and arrogance.

He is working with an outdated and unsound theory of how firms compete in the marketplace.

It was a revolting display to see the bureaucrats at the Justice Department cheer Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision. Many of these people didn't even know how to get around the web twelve months ago, and now they are making decisions for millions of consumers and threatening to smash the company that democratized information. The government, driven by power-lust and fueled by the envy of Microsoft's competitors, is happy to jam a crowbar into the wheel of commerce.

Not just the Microsoft case, but the entire history of government regulation of monopoly is shot through with distortions of fact and unjust legal interventions. 

What are the economic effects of market dominance by one firm? To hear the Justice Department tell it, market dominance spells disaster

Why neoclassical economists are wrong to stop short of calling for the full repeal of antitrust.