Antitrust

Trying to post this a 5th time:

Good Article in the SeattlePI on the effect of anti trust legislation.


Then there's the question of who antitrust law is supposed to benefit -- competitors or consumers. Proponents of the former argue that maintaining multiple competitors, especially in the face of a large, dominant player, is essential to protecting the latter. Others argue that near-monopoly companies (such as Microsoft and PC operating systems) are not necessarily detrimental to consumers, and if there's no proof consumers are being harmed, there's no basis for legal intervention.

The continuing antitrust fights involving Microsoft have raised a third point of contention: Whether bankruptcy law can move fast enough to deal with realities of the technology marketplace. The judgments and settlements in the government's antitrust cases seemed to be resolving yesterday's disputes tomorrow; by the case's conclusion the original point was moot.
If anything, the Microsoft-RealNetworks settlement announced earlier this week demonstrates how unresolved those first two debates are. Those who question the need for antitrust law won't find much to dissuade them from the belief that such suits are merely grabs for money, publicity or protection. Those who insist antitrust law doesn't go far enough will see just another example of Microsoft settling because it has the cash to make troublesome suits go away.

One of the best books on the law and econometrics of antitrust legislation is Richard Posner's. Definitely worth reading.