Comments on: The One Minute Case Against Antitrust http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/antitrust/ The One Minute Case is a new collaborative blog which will present a brief argument about a controversial issue that can be read in about a minute. The goal is to publish one case per day. You can read the cases to learn something new about an issue or use them as a source for longer arguments of your own. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:31:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Galileo Blogs http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/antitrust/#comment-49 Galileo Blogs Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:19:38 +0000 http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/monopoly/#comment-49 I didn't realize IBM licensed, rather than bought Microsoft's operating system (or Microsoft itself) because of the antitrust consent decree. That transaction was famous in Microsoft's history, since by retaining rights to the software, Microsoft established its dominance of personal computing software, an industry that subsequently grew extremely rapidly. Although Microsoft in hindsight may have gotten an extra boost from the application of antitrust against IBM, that in no way justifies antitrust, which is rule by arbitrary government decree. Microsoft's "gain" in this case was at IBM's expense. Microsoft's gain came by violating the rights of IBM. In fact, both parties rights were violated since since Microsoft was denied the option of selling its software (or the company) to IBM. It could only license the software. The fact that a particular antitrust-dictated outcome such as this one appears beneficial in hindsight in no way justifies the government's exercise of this arbitrary, tyrannical power. Clearly, even judging each antitrust action on its own, antitrust is not only violative of the right to property and freedom to contract of companies, but it also in nearly all cases stifles innovation, reduces economies of scale, and destroys wealth. The histories of the impact of antitrust on the great innovators, such as the companies mentioned above, bear this out. I didn’t realize IBM licensed, rather than bought Microsoft’s operating system (or Microsoft itself) because of the antitrust consent decree. That transaction was famous in Microsoft’s history, since by retaining rights to the software, Microsoft established its dominance of personal computing software, an industry that subsequently grew extremely rapidly.

Although Microsoft in hindsight may have gotten an extra boost from the application of antitrust against IBM, that in no way justifies antitrust, which is rule by arbitrary government decree. Microsoft’s “gain” in this case was at IBM’s expense. Microsoft’s gain came by violating the rights of IBM. In fact, both parties rights were violated since since Microsoft was denied the option of selling its software (or the company) to IBM. It could only license the software.

The fact that a particular antitrust-dictated outcome such as this one appears beneficial in hindsight in no way justifies the government’s exercise of this arbitrary, tyrannical power. Clearly, even judging each antitrust action on its own, antitrust is not only violative of the right to property and freedom to contract of companies, but it also in nearly all cases stifles innovation, reduces economies of scale, and destroys wealth. The histories of the impact of antitrust on the great innovators, such as the companies mentioned above, bear this out.

]]> By: Jim http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/antitrust/#comment-48 Jim Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:21:25 +0000 http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/monopoly/#comment-48 *by purchasing them, I mean buying the Microsoft company outright, and then raising price to consumers, etc... *by purchasing them, I mean buying the Microsoft company outright, and then raising price to consumers, etc…

]]> By: Jim http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/antitrust/#comment-47 Jim Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:20:46 +0000 http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/monopoly/#comment-47 I think you're wrong. In the 80s, IBM was under consent decree, and therefore had to license an OS from Microsoft (MS-DOS/Q-DOS) instead of purchasing them, as monopolies want to do to competitors or those who can break their monopoly. I think you’re wrong. In the 80s, IBM was under consent decree, and therefore had to license an OS from Microsoft (MS-DOS/Q-DOS) instead of purchasing them, as monopolies want to do to competitors or those who can break their monopoly.

]]>