Over at the Washington Examiner’s Opinion Zone, Wayne Crews and I explain why New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit against Intel is a mistake.

Calling Intel’s business practices “bribery” and “coercion” is little more than argument by assertion. Rebates and exclusivity deals are normal competitive behavior. Not only is Intel facing increasing competition in its home turf, that small segment is hardly the extent of the relevant competitive market. Intel faces an uncertain future as consumer tastes shift to smaller…

Read the full story

Bryan Caplan says there are only two ways for a monopoly to form: government protection, or being the best.

“If the firm has a monopoly because the government made competition illegal, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s legalizing competition. If the firm has a monopoly because it’s the best, the solution isn’t antitrust; it’s a little freakin’ appreciation.”

Read the whole thing.

Read the full story

Antitrust laws are intended to prevent anti-competitive practices. And if anything qualifies as an anti-competitive practice, fining and jailing people for competing with you certainly would. Which brings us to this little tidbit from the Code of Federal Regulations:

It is generally unlawful under the Private Express Statutes for any person other than the Postal Service in any manner to send or carry a letter on a post route or in any manner to cause or assist such activity. Violation may result…

Read the full story

Regina Herzlinger, chair of Harvard Business School, in National Review takes on health care and the Obama Administration’s arguments that a government-run plan would increase competition, provide more choice, and lead to greater cost efficiencies:

But before we get swept away, let us remember that these health-insurance markets would be monopolies run by government, two characteristics that normally do not enhance consumer welfare. Picture the efficiency of your Division of Motor Vehicles, for example.

Also consider government-run monopoly liquor stores. Despite their…

Read the full story

Under that Orwellian slogan, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, or “Ma Bell,” operated its telephone monopoly for the better part of the 20th century. For sixty years, regulators nurtured Ma Bell’s control of the industry, convinced that the telephone market was a natural monopoly. At one point, AT&T’s grip was so tight that the company owned not only the wires in our walls but also the telephones we plugged into them, and its monopoly persisted until the company in…

Read the full story

As an indicator of how perverse wealth-draining antitrust policy has become, have a look at the “concessions” being squeezed out of Google and Yahoo on their proposed advertising collaboration.

In the communications realm, it used to be that the heavy-metal infrastructure companies were regarded as monopolistic or potentially so. Then, wise regulators feared the Windows desktop surely was an essential facility to which competitors deserved access. Now, “mere” content companies are the monopolies.

Think about it; websites–code!!–are being regarded as something regulators…

Read the full story