Antitrust: Is there really a point?

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Firms can gain monopoly status without the aid of government

I am not one to claim that it is impossible for firms to attain a monopoly status which is detrimental to consumers. I will claim, however, that this is impossible without the aid of government. Take Microsoft for example; the prices of their software would be significantly lower if it were not for the state-imposed intellectual property laws. Simply put, these laws prevent other firms from entering the market -- not the efficiency of Microsoft’s production. It is ironic that the government went after Microsoft for their monopoly via antitrust, seeing how it is the entity which caused it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you know your Microsoft history very well. In every product that they sell except maybe Flight Simulator they were not the leading vendor. Ever hear of Ashton-Tate, Lotus, Word Perfect, Netscape and Digital Research? Maybe you've heard of IBM or Apple? Anyway Microsoft didn't reach it's position of market dominance due to intellectual property laws. The notion that they did is pure nonesense. The truth of the matter is that software is more or less not that protected by IP laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link me to a place where I can buy another firm's version of Windows XP for a price which is actually related to its cost of production.

Think about it, without intellectual property laws wouldn't some Microsoft programmer (or anyone with the ability) start up a competing software company which sold something very similar to Windows, for much lower cost. There is a reason this hasn't happened, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft's efficiency and low prices.