3 ms·

> At trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the

> At trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgments. > I teach antitrust to grads and undergrads. Consider updating the curriculum? My understanding is that the bundling was actionable because they were considered a monopoly.

nodamage 4y ago
I'm not sure whether by "bundling" you are referring to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, but if so, that was actually one of the findings that was specifically vacated by the appeals court: These arguments all point to one conclusion: we cannot comfortably say that bundling in platform software markets has so little "redeeming virtue," N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, and that there would be so "very little loss to society" from its ban, that "an inquiry into its costs in the individual case [can be] considered [] unnecessary." Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 33-34, 104 S.Ct. 1551 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We do not have enough empirical evidence regarding the effect of Microsoft's practice on the amount of consumer surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding that entire class of behavior. (For some issues we have no data.) "We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they ... should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act." White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S.Ct. 696. Until then, we will heed the wisdom that "easy labels do not always supply ready answers," Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, 99 S.Ct. 1551, and vacate the District Court's finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act § 1. We remand the case for evaluation of Microsoft's tying arrangements under the rule of reason.
oneoff786 4y ago
Monopoly is a red herring term that inadequately covers the space of abuse of market power. It’s easy for abusers to argue they’re not monopolies as a means of dodging the important bit. Hell you have plenty of people eager to do it for them. See comments on this very article on HN.

nodamage 4y ago

I'm not sure whether by "bundling" you are referring to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows, but if so, that was actually one of the findings that was specifically vacated by the appeals court: These arguments all point to one conclusion: we cannot comfortably say that bundling in platform software markets has so little "redeeming virtue," N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, and that there would be so "very little loss to society" from its ban, that "an inquiry into its costs in the individual case [can be] considered [] unnecessary." Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 33-34, 104 S.Ct. 1551 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We do not have enough empirical evidence regarding the effect of Microsoft's practice on the amount of consumer surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding that entire class of behavior. (For some issues we have no data.) "We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they ... should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act." White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S.Ct. 696. Until then, we will heed the wisdom that "easy labels do not always supply ready answers," Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, 99 S.Ct. 1551, and vacate the District Court's finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act § 1. We remand the case for evaluation of Microsoft's tying arrangements under the rule of reason.

oneoff786 4y ago

Monopoly is a red herring term that inadequately covers the space of abuse of market power. It’s easy for abusers to argue they’re not monopolies as a means of dodging the important bit. Hell you have plenty of people eager to do it for them. See comments on this very article on HN.