![]() ![]() Rather than casting about for conspiracy theories, everyone interested in this matter would do well to focus on the facts, the law - and the choice now before the courts, which is not whether, but how, to remedy the damage being caused by the Microsoft monopoly. Even as staunch a critic of the Microsoft case as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page said "it was hard to find much wrong with Judge Jackson’s rendition of the ‘facts’." 1 Speaking in favor of Klein's nomination, former Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) defended his pro-market approach, calling him "within the mainstream of antitrust law and doctrine."įurther, the trial has been presided over by a Reagan-appointed judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is not known for having anti-business views. Rather than argue the facts, or the law, they have cast aspersions on the ideological leanings (too liberal?) or even the ethical standards (politically motivated?) of those involved in prosecuting the case.įor those who might be inclined to accept such arguments, it is important to remember that the Microsoft case has been prosecuted by an Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Joel Klein, who was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of 88-12 - with all 12 of those opposing his nomination being liberal Democrats concerned that he would be too "pro-market" in his approach. Some of Microsoft’s defenders apparently view the trial record as unimportant - or even biased. While we believe these issues are all worthy of debate and discussion, such discussion can only be constructive if it acknowledges the voluminous factual and legal record that has already been established during the course of the trial. In this paper, we summarize the factual evidence and legal analysis that lead us to conclude a remedy is desirable, and describe briefly the remedy we have concluded would best serve consumers. Further, we believe that one type of remedy - a "competitive" structural remedy that would create four companies from the current one and so restore competition to the market for operating systems - is clearly preferable to other alternatives. ![]() In our view, it is quite clear that Microsoft has violated the law and harmed consumers. Have the antitrust laws outlived their usefulness? Should they be enforced in the high-tech sector of the economy? Is Microsoft a good candidate for such enforcement? Have Microsoft’s actions violated the law and/or harmed consumers? Most importantly, if Microsoft has violated the law, what can or should be done about it? The Microsoft case is a legitimate and important topic for political debate. Periodic Commentaries on the Policy Debate (80 MS Points/£0.The Microsoft Monopoly: The Facts, the Law and the Remedyīy Jeffrey A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |