OVERVIEW OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND ITS APPLICATION TO

OVERVIEW OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND ITS APPLICATION TO MICROSOFT A broad deal of the public discussion concerning Microsoft seems to assume that, because Microsoft has been highly lucrative and has engaged in various practices that have placed a number of rivals under intense competitive pressure, the comp all is plumb game for whatever remedies the Department of Justice might lead to impose. In fact, however, the Departments magnate to impose remedies on Microsoft is dependent on its ability to establish in court that Microsoft has violated prick 2 of the Sherman shape. Specifically, the Department must prove non merely that Microsoft has monopoly power but also that Microsoft has acquired or maintained that power through exclusionary or predatory acts.

In light of those effectual requirements, there simply is no sound basis for a section 2 suit against Microsoft. The various theories that have been go by Microsofts detractors as grounds for a section 2 suit would require a radical departure from breathing case law. In effect, the laws current focus on consumers and launching would have to be diverted to protection of competitors at the cost of consumers. Moreover, those theories would require courts to second-guess Microsofts product design and distribution efforts - a task that the courts are simply not equipped to perform.



And, rase if the Department could persuade the courts to transform the antitrust laws so radically, any remedy that the Department might seek to impose would need unspoilty be highly regulatory and would almost certainly humble consumer welfare and impede innovation.

I. Section 2 of the Sherman Act and monopolisation As the Supreme Court has stated, Congress designed the Sherman Act as a consumer welfare prescription. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S.

330, 343 (1979), quoting R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 66 (1978). In other words, the law protects the marketplace from private transfer that interferes with the competitive process. Or stated differently, the antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors. Brown Shoe Co. v.

If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper