The document discusses two landmark anti-trust cases in the US - U.S. vs Alcoa and U.S. vs Microsoft. It summarizes that forcing Alcoa to sell its aluminum plants created a more competitive aluminum industry in the US. However, the effects of penalizing Microsoft are less clear, as technology has changed in ways not predicted and Microsoft has become less innovative since the case. While some argue competition increased, others believe Microsoft became less aggressive to the detriment of consumers. The document concludes that while the Alcoa case clearly increased competition, the decision to penalize Microsoft remains controversial.
The document discusses two landmark anti-trust cases in the US - U.S. vs Alcoa and U.S. vs Microsoft. It summarizes that forcing Alcoa to sell its aluminum plants created a more competitive aluminum industry in the US. However, the effects of penalizing Microsoft are less clear, as technology has changed in ways not predicted and Microsoft has become less innovative since the case. While some argue competition increased, others believe Microsoft became less aggressive to the detriment of consumers. The document concludes that while the Alcoa case clearly increased competition, the decision to penalize Microsoft remains controversial.
The document discusses two landmark anti-trust cases in the US - U.S. vs Alcoa and U.S. vs Microsoft. It summarizes that forcing Alcoa to sell its aluminum plants created a more competitive aluminum industry in the US. However, the effects of penalizing Microsoft are less clear, as technology has changed in ways not predicted and Microsoft has become less innovative since the case. While some argue competition increased, others believe Microsoft became less aggressive to the detriment of consumers. The document concludes that while the Alcoa case clearly increased competition, the decision to penalize Microsoft remains controversial.
governments decision to penalize Alcoa has definitely served to make
Americas aluminum industry more competitive. The positive effects of punishing Microsoft for violating the governments anti-trust laws, on the other hand, are less clear. After Alcoa was forced to sell most of its aluminum plants to Kaiser and Reynolds, the U.S. was left with four major aluminum manufacturers- Alcoa, Alcan, Reynolds and Kaiser. To ensure that Alcoa did not re-monopolize the markets, the U.S. Department of Justice retained jurisdiction over the company until 1957 (Alcoa). By guaranteeing that Reynolds and Kaiser were allotted a larger share of market, the United States created a more competitive environment for aluminum companies to function. The increased competition ultimately allowed for easier entry into the industry. By 1958, three more companies, Anaconda, Orment and Harvey, had entered the American aluminum market (Alcoa). Thanks to government intervention, Alcoas monopoly had been dismantled, allowing for greater competition and efficiency. In fact, even Alcoa benefitted from the new state of affairs. As the American aluminum business flourished, Alcoas loss of market share was more than offset by increased demand for products. (Alcoa) Since U.S. vs. Alcoa happened half a century ago, the effects of that ruling are very clear. In the case of U.S. vs. Microsoft, however, it is more difficult to determine whether the governments decision made the American technology industry more competitive. On one hand, the Department of Justice has determined that the judgment protected the development and distribution of middleware including web browsers, media players and instant messaging software thereby increasing choices available to consumers. (Department of Justice) In much the same way that U.S. vs. Alcoa produced greater competition in the American aluminum industry, the Department of Justice claims that its actions prevented Microsoft from continuing its monopolistic behavior, increased competition and allowed for easier entry into the technology market. The government even goes as far as to claim that its decision helped create competitive conditions that enabled new kinds of products, such as cloud computing services and mobile devices, to develop. (Department of Justice) Although it is certainly true that companies like Apple and Google have thrived since the ruling, it is unclear whether their rise can be attributed to the governments decision to penalize Microsoft. Technology has developed in ways that could not have been predicted and the center of the governments argument against Microsoft- that its domination of the PC market stifled competition from other internet browser manufacturers- is largely irrelevant today. Some argue that the penalties imposed on Microsoft did not actually increase competition, but rather forced a once-innovative company to become a shell of its former self, to the detriment of consumers. Michael Cusumano, a professor at the MIT School of Management states that Since the antitrust suit, (Microsoft) has become much more cautious and much less aggressive. They're afraid, it seems. Whether it's antitrust in U.S. or in Europe, they seem to be slowly reacting to the world around them, rather than trying to get in there fast." (Seattle Times) Both U.S. vs. Alcoa and U.S. vs. Microsoft were landmark cases that had far- reaching consequences. Although hindsight allows us to look back and see that breaking up Alcoa ultimately increased competition and benefitted consumers, the decision to penalize Microsoft remains controversial.
Proceedings of The Baroda Commission, Appointed To Inquire Into The Charges Against H. Malharrow Gaekwar of Baroda, of Instigating An Attempt To Poison The British Resident