olation of antitrust law in three cases. Yet, despite this case dragging on for three years and helping lower Microsoft stock, there are few involved on the case (and more of them are fellow-justices) that can point to evidence that Microsoft has hurt the technology industry or consumers in any kind of economic manner. While bullying, arrogance, and deception may be part of Microsoft’s tactics, one would be hard pressed to find a modern international corporation close to this level of success that was not perceived in such a manner. However, economic clout and market success are not violations of antitrust law. Neither is releasing software that comes packed with plenty of extra features, most of them for free. This has made many legal analysts outraged over government intervention in the company’s operations “What harm, if any, has really been done to consumers? Unless there is clear evidence that Microsoft’s actions have actually hurt consumers, the case for major government intervention if fundamentally flawed” (Moschella 29). It is fundamentally flawed because antitrust legislates that in order for the government to intervene there must be evidence of harm to consumers fr
...