Legal System

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. 

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. 

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

Fair disclosure: how much did Netscape pay Robert Bork to become an apologist for the most destructive government action of our time? 

The essential element in monopoly is forcible exclusion and forcible reservation, not the number of producers.

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.