Good Law, Good Economics
By David R. Henderson
11/06/2002

It's hard to believe that the Microsoft case is Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's first excursion into antitrust. Her decision reads as if written by someone with a nuanced understanding of the complex series of precedents that constitute modern antitrust law. In antitrust cases, knowledge of the law must also be supplemented with an understanding of economics. Here, too, the Judge shows a grasp of key principles, especially the crucial importance of incentives in encouraging innovation.

. . .

I would, of course, have preferred the Microsoft case not come to this. After all, for the next five years, Microsoft will operate under onerous regulations that none of its competitors will face. Still, had the dissenting states had their way, Microsoft's principle assets would have been expropriated

A judge who has just finished handling the first, and, most likely, the biggest antitrust case of her life, has done a great service, not just for Microsoft, but also for consumers. More important, she has ably defended the property rights and rule of law that protect the freedom and wealth of us all.

I would like to read this article as humour or parody. Unfortunately, I
checked the author's credit at the end and was unsurprised to note a
potential view of interest.
At one point, he gives the Judge marks for rejecting a Sun Microsystems
request to penalise MS for 'improving' Java, a known open standard. Without
meandering through details, the author has no knowledge of the history of
computers, PCs or otherwise, save MS History of Computing.