Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Those two cases could not be any more different. One case (Microsoft) the defendant won, the other case the prosecutor won. In both cases both Amazon and Microsoft were not found guilty of breaking the law. Amazon because it was not on trial, and Microsoft because they won in court. In that sense intervention is necessary to protect the status of monopolies. Except not the way you are thinking. A monopolie's status needs to be protected from competitors that try to illegally break them apart if they are uncapable to do so in a fair and legal way. And the status also needs to be protected from forced splitting up without legal grounds.
In an uncontrolled capitalism (no government laws / regulations) eventually there would be nothing but monopolies.
|
You should know that Microsoft was initially found guilty and the judge talked about breaking Microsoft up. The judgement was over turned on appeal and the judge in the case was reprimanded for his lack of impartiality. I note that like Amazon, Netscape was not found guilty of anything either, possibly because both were attempting to take advantage of their contact in the government to gain a competitive advantage. It didn't work out well for Netscape. Amazon seems to be a better run company with an actual plan to make money, something Netscape never seemed to have.