The Microsoft case demonstrated that the power of a tech giant can be trimmed thereby clearing the way for new entrants and innovation, while yet preserving Microsoft itself as a great tech performer. Had Microsoft continued its dominance unimpeded would Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Netflix have found room to emerge successfully? Does the Microsoft case suggest that we need to employ antitrust law to attack great concentrations of power, or are the market and ethics sufficient to promote economic efficiency and preserve social, economic, and political justice? Microsoft, at the time of its lawsuit, was substantially alone as a computer superpower. Today we have multiple giants, each competing with and affecting the behavior of the others. Perhaps those market pressures and a measure of corporate citizenship will do the trick. Or perhaps not. Critics such as journalist Alan Murray are rather cynical about the Microsoft lesson: The Microsoft saga serves as a reminder of an important truth: Capitalists, for the most part, don’t care much for capitalism. Their goal is to make money. And if they can do it without messy competition, so much the better.

Questions 

1. a. Do you see increasing concentrations of corporate wealth and power as threats to America’s long-term welfare? Explain. 

b. If that concentration is a concern, is antitrust law the best remedy? Explain. 

2. Does the Microsoft case stand simply for the view that bigness is bad? Explain. 

3. Bloomberg’s editorial board has argued against breaking up Facebook ­saying that the social media titan has plenty of problems, but breaking it up would not solve them. Would we be better off with several smaller versions of Facebook? Explain. See Editorial Board, “Don’t Break Up Facebook,” Bloomberg, July 16, 2018 [www.bloomberg.com].