Once upon a time, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department was an impressive fighting force for the American public. (FDR's trustbuster, Thurman Arnold, comes to mind.) It went to court routinely--and it won. Afterwards, prices fell and monopoly market shares dropped. Since about '75, it's been in the business of drafting 'consent decrees'--corporate averments that they've never sinned since the charter was first bestowed but that, by golly, they'll nonetheless go and sin no more. Today, the Justice Department lacks only 2 things to beat Bill Gates--will and competence. It can be safely predicted, then, that--as I've said before--Bill will win again. How does a toothless government bureaucracy like the Antitrust Division beat someone who has $40 billion in his pocket--in a court (D.C. Circuit) appointed by Ronald Reagan? (Remember the judges who picked Kenneth Starr to pursue Clinton?) How will we know who won? Bill currently has a monopoly, right, an 80% to 90% share of the OS market, the only one that really counts? And he engages in some "unfair" methods of competition--tying and so on--right? And both his monopoly and his unfair practices have some antisocial "effects," like inflated prices to the public, suppressed technologies, and so on? Ah, but can it all be PROVED by the wimpish DOJ lawyers--while being muscled around by Gates' top legal guns--to the satisfaction of Reagan judges, who've never seen a monopoly they didn't love? (I reviewed the antitrust cases decided by the D.C. Circuit for the 5-year period 1986- 91 in my journal--a total of 28 cases--and found no decision for an injured plaintiff. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 15-26. The guiding antitrust principle of this pro-monopoly court is, the defendant always wins.) Bill holds all the cards because he knows that the D.C. Circuit Court is in his pocket. He knows its Reagan judges hate antitrust, that they'll set aside anything he asks them to. So he'll agree to a little tinkering with the 'consent decree' he's now accused of violating--to clear up any 'ambiguity' in the language his lawyers put in last time--and the Justice Department will announce a great victory for the 'consumer.' Bill's PRICES will of course be unaffected. His practices--the exclusion of his competitors from all the markets that count--will go on, albeit under perhaps other names. His market SHARE--the 80% to 90% of the OS market that gave him his modest current $40 billion--will remain undisturbed. His Microsoft STOCK price will go UP another notch. His monopoly marches on. Bill won. DOJ lost. The way way one tells who won an antitrust case is straightforward: Did the monopolist's price FALL--and by how much? Did his stock price plummet? Did the monopolist's market share shrink--and by how much? They're connected: Until his market SHARE is punctured, his price won't drop. If there are no real changes in these 2 numbers, Bill won. The U.S. public lost. Ralph Nader's 'Appraising Microsoft' conference of November 13 and 14, 1997, will come and go. It will generate a lot of words but, in my view, neither it nor the Justice Department's current challenge to Bill will produce serious economic results. Nader won't ask for a break-up of Gates' 90% share of the OS market. And without that, nothing will change. Charles Mueller, Editor ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller *******************