Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

2001

University of Florida Levin College of Law

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Monopolization, Innovation, And Consumer Welfare, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page Mar 2001

Monopolization, Innovation, And Consumer Welfare, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

While most commentators and the enforcement agencies voice support for the consumer welfare standard, substantial disagreement exists over when economic theory justifies a presumption of consumer injury. Virtually all would subscribe to the theoretical prediction that an effective cartel will likely inflict consumer injury by reducing output and thus increasing prices. But the academic and judicial consensus disappears when the theory at issue predicts that a practice -- a merger or a predatory pricing campaign, for example -- will harm consumers in the future through some complex sequence of events.

In our view, the desire to protect innovation is legitimate, …


Who Suffered Antitrust Injury In The Microsoft Case?, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page Jan 2001

Who Suffered Antitrust Injury In The Microsoft Case?, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

Most of the popular and scholarly discussions of Microsoft have focused on whether the defendant violated the law and, if so, whether the remedial order was appropriate. Never far from the surface in all of these discussions, however, has been the prospect of private antitrust suits that would inevitably follow a government victory. Indeed, numerous consumer class actions were filed against Microsoft in the wake of the District Court's issuance of its findings of fact. Should the District Court's decisions on liability stand, Microsoft can expect to face other suits by a variety of actors, including competitors, original equipment manufacturers …