The Free Market 16, no. ( 1998) The Microsoft Corporation’s continuing difficulties with the Department of Justice, even after an appeals court ruled in the company’s favor, reveal the absurdity of attempting to apply 19th-century antitrust law to a 21st-century computer and telecommunications marketplace. Microsoft had licensed its Windows
The Free Market 17, no. 8 (August 1999) I reside in Indian River County, Florida, where jury duty is mandated by statute, as in most states. This means that the courts in the county are authorized to “summon” specific individuals for service in civil and criminal proceedings as jurors. A failure to respond to the jury duty summons will be
In his latest version of the “problems with free trade” argument, PCR appears to grant that free trade is beneficial generally, but is only problematic when all (or nearly all) firms seeking cheap labor actually relocate to the cheap labor market country. But even aside from the remoteness of this condition in reality, it can be argued that, at
Volume 2, No. 3 (Fall 1999) The resourceful antitrust community has simply gone ahead and reinvented itself by developing several new theories and an entirely new approach to evidence. (Unfortunately, the new approach is that favorable evidence no longer matters.) All of this is important since the antitrust enthusiasts and regulators intend
The Free Market 26, no. 4 (April 2005) For those who thought that the Microsoft antitrust nonsense was over, think again. In March of 2004 Microsoft was fined a record $648 million by the European Commission for exercising its (alleged) monopoly power in the operating systems market. The most important element of that alleged monopoly power was
Volume 16, No. 1 (Spring 2013) The author explores during a lecture that all antitrust regulation is economically inefficient and morally wrong and all of it—the laws and the enforcement agencies—should be thrown out. He states this because it’s right and because it’s true and because it’s always our obligation, regardless of the consequences, to
Volume 18, Number 3 (Fall 1998) An Interview With Dominick T. Armentano Dominick T. Armentano is professor emeritus at the University of Hartford, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, a member of the editorial board of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics , and author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure and
The rhetoric and imagery of American antitrust law has always been procompetition and proconsumer. However, the reality has always been the opposite. As demonstrated by Dominic Armentano , Tom DiLorenzo , and others, it has been not only a pervasive violation of property rights but also anticompetition and anticonsumer. Antitrust keeps superior
There are major and fundamental disagreements between some of the leading Austrians, and these disagreements are created by wholly different theories concerning the definition of monopoly, the origins of monopoly, and the supposed effects of monopoly on consumer sovereignty and efficient resource
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.