[Am-info] Monopolies can be legal

[John Poltorak]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:43:23PM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote:
> 
> from http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/antitrust_5.html
> 
> "Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful to monopolize, attempt 
> to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize a line of commerce. It is 
> significant that the statute does not speak in terms of the existence of 
> a monopoly; rather, its focus is on the act of monopolization, which 
> requires something more. The offense of monopolization  , which is not 
> purely structural, has two elements: (1) possession of monopoly power in 
> the relevant market, and (2) willful acquisition or maintenance of that 
> power."
> 
> This was forwarded to me by a friend that happens to be a lawyer, and 
> one that happens to be more aware of technology issues than most lawyers 
> I've met.  The rest of the document is an interesting read, if you're 
> interested in this sort of thing.  The political scientist in me can't 
> resist this type of stuff. :-)
> 
> So, repeat after me: Monopolies are not illegal. :-)

Give me an example of a legal monopoly.

Are you arguing that Microsoft is such an example?

My point here is that as a result of a four year Anti-trust trial in which 
it has been establishhed conclusively that Microsoft has acted as an 
illegal monopoly, this illegal monopoly has now become become sanctioned  
because the courts have chosen to allow it to remain intact.

The issue will not be revisited.

It shows that if you are rich and powerful enough you can ignore the law 
and get away with it.

This is not a good example for the US to give to the rest of the world.


> Sujal

-- 
John