Legal System

William Anderson answers an objection to his defense of Microsoft. 

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. 

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.

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.

The technology is Now Available that would allow your grocery store to track the movements of customers across the store using the distinct infrared signature of each individual. By linking the data with information at the checkout counter, the purchasing habits and meanderings of each person could be analyzed.

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. 

James Ostrowski takes on the dissenting Justices, praised by the New York Times, in the Supreme Court's latest Commerce Clause case.

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

An agency within an agency, and the political battle over its future, provides a case study of a much larger problem: government can't rationally allocate resources. 

The new campaign to impose vacations as a mandated benefit, promoted by Escape Magazine,  rests on economic fallacy.