Bibliography Foreword I only issued an official complete version of this article in Novemberbut I had begun writing it inand most of the ideas were already in the draft available on my page at that time. Inthe Clinton administration was leading a much publicized judicial prosecution against Microsoft, and there was heated debate about the meaning of it all, in the general public, but also among free software advocates, and particularly among libertarians. With the end of the Clinton administration, the new US government issued a settlement largely considered to be very favorable to Microsoft as compared to the charges established during the finding of fact.
Email Last Updated Oct 25, Government regulation is good for business Many people and especially the "business" press tend to use the umbrella term "business" to mean any organization that tries to make a profit.
But that usage is, like most generalizations, misleading.
There is very little commonality of self-interest between, say, a mega-billion dollar company like Walmart, and a locally-owned boutique. Business conditions that help Walmart to be successful are almost always going to make it more difficult for that boutique to survive. This is an important distinction to make because majority of business activity in the United States takes place in small business.
According to the U.
Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U. What does this have to do with government regulation?
A lack of government regulation is almost always to the advantage of big businesses and to the disadvantage of small businesses. Such a condition always results in the formation of monopolies and the suppression of smaller firms, even if those firms might be highly innovative. As the great Adam Smith pointed out: In fact, government regulations are often intentionally written so that they favor big businesses over small ones.
This always happens because legislators and regulators are usually "owned" by big businesses, either through campaign contribution bribery or the promise of future employment. A perfect example of this is Sarbanes-Oxley, the financial regulation enacted after the Enron debacle.
Even though the culprits of the debacle were very much from the world of big business, the net effect of Sarbox on small businesses was to add a fixed cost massive accounting fees to going public, an expense that large companies could easily afford, but which was and is burdensome on smaller firms.
The problem is that the elected government of the United States has become like the elected government of Imperial Rome. All the forms of the republic remain in place, but the actual decisions are made elsewhere.
On the other hand, there have been times in the history of the United States, where the government has enacted regulations and laws that help small businesses.
Big businesses, of course, love free trade because it gives them license to move their manufacturing overseas. However, such movement often means the collapse of local small business. To summarize, here are the rules of the game: Government regulation either favors big business or very rarely favors small business.
Therefore, government regulation is good for business. However, since both parties are "owned" by big business, that will never happen, so the choice will be between the Republican idea of deregulation which will vastly favor big business and the Democratic idea of regulation which will also favor big business, as shown by the laughably impotent attempt to "regulate" Wall Street.
Comments welcome, of course.A structural remedy, on the other hand, would end the Microsoft monopoly, end the threat of government regulation and obviate the need for further litigation now and for many years to come. Endnotes 1 The Wall Street Journal, November 23, , p.
Essay about Government Regulation of the Microsoft Corporation - Government Regulation of the Microsoft Corporation Does the government have the right to regulate large corporations, namely the Microsoft Corporation.
If so, then to what extent can the government do so.
Based on our research, it is the government’s responsibility to remedy. Abstract: We hereby clarify the radical libertarian stance about Microsoft and government, and more generally about arteensevilla.com explain how the original evil behind Microsoft's monopoly is government intervention in the form of intellectual property privileges, and .
The government also indicated in October that, should it win, it would seek an additional hearing where it would suggest additional sanctions that should be placed on Microsoft. Ultimately, though, it is up to the judge to decide what penalties to levy upon Microsoft should he rule in the government's favor.
Essay about Government Regulation of the Microsoft Corporation - Government Regulation of the Microsoft Corporation Does the government have the right to regulate large corporations, namely the Microsoft Corporation. If so, then to what extent can the government do so.
Based on our research, it is the government’s responsibility to . Creature of the State: This argument for government regulation of business, made prominent by Ralph Nader and others, holds that because corporations are chartered by states, corporate commerce should be regulated.
In this view, the state charter actually “creates” the corporation, and government should regulate the behavior of its.