News Release

November 1, 2002

Media Contact: (202) 842-0200 ext. 800

Antitrust Expert Available to Comment on Microsoft Decision
No matter what the outcome, shareholders, employees, and consumers lose

WASHINGTON -- Later today, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is expected to issue a remedy in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft was previously found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the personal computer market. Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Robert A. Levy, who has written extensively on the Microsoft antitrust case, is available to comment on the decision as soon as it is released. In anticipation of the decision Levy issued the following statement:

"We'll soon know whether Microsoft's billionaire rivals will have succeeded in their latest attempt to use government for competitive advantage. But no matter how Judge Kollar-Kotelly rules, the Microsoft antitrust case has produced nothing but losers. Shareholders, employees, consumers -- there are no winners. If the Justice Department settlement is approved, Microsoft will have made more concessions than could possibly be justified by this lawsuit. In the meantime, consumers had to pick up the tab while high-tech executives spent their time currying favor with the politicians.

"The nine non-settling states relied on the same consolidated trial, the same factual findings, and the same legal conclusions as the Justice Department. They claimed no injury that would justify a different remedy, and their intent was to vindicate the same rights of the same people that were represented by the Justice Department. Hopefully, Judge Kollar-Kotelly will shut down this nonsense and let software companies get back to developing the kinds of integrated products that until now had characterized the industry.

"Longer-term, a more permanent approach is necessary. Congress is constitutionally authorized to intervene whenever state practices threaten the free flow of commerce. Congress should use that power and strip the states of their authority to enforce federal antitrust laws. Otherwise, some states will continue to abuse that authority - exercising it to affect commerce beyond their borders, cater to the parochial interests of politically powerful local constituents, and promote remedies that the federal government has expressly considered and rejected."

For previous articles and studies on the Microsoft case by Levy please refer to: