Monopoly and Competition

Judge Jackson's reasoning is fatally flawed, says Dominick T. Armentano. Microsoft has a dominant position in a narrowly defined relevant market, but no meaningful monopoly and no output restricting monopoly power. 

Judge Jackson's decision in the Microsoft case assumes that superior technology doesn't win out in market competition. Is he right?

The shoe industry is under regulatory attack,  adding to the list of businesses punished for exercising the freedom to make contracts and compete in a market economy.

The judge in the Microsoft case says the company is like Standard Oil earlier this century. He's right, for the wrong reasons. 

The Japanese FTC used kid gloves, but still punished the firm for doing what competitors are supposed to do. 

The Justice Department wasn't just trying to curb one firm; it was sending a message to America's entire entrepreneurial class. 

Richard Posner, often said to have free-market sympathies, will mediate the Microsoft case. But he can't be trusted to defend property rights, says Walter Block.
 

Timothy Terrell, reviewing an important new book,  examines a central theoretical flaw behind the attack on Microsoft.

In an interview with Mises.org, a leading German classical liberal explains how the government botched unification.

Even when the market produces amazing new technology, it can become a basis for criticism. There are two main excuses used today to justify intervention in the technology market. The first argues that manufacturers build a planned obsolescence into their designs. The second argues that a path dependency subsidizes some firms artificially at the expense of others.