Again, with respect to your second point, the court had no choice but to pursue what you believe was "ridiculous", because it is required by section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act:
The threshold element of a § 2 monopolization offense being "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market,"...the Court must first ascertain the boundaries of the commercial activity that can be termed the "relevant market."
...and it was germane to the standards regarding product tying relevant to section 1 of the same act:
Proceeding in line with the Supreme Court cases, which are indisputably controlling, this Court first concludes that Microsoft possessed "appreciable economic power in the tying market," Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 464...Because this Court has already found that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (i.e., the tying product market), Findings ¶¶ 18-67, the threshold element of "appreciable economic power" is a fortiori met.
(Both of those excerpts are from the same Conclusions of Law document, of course.)
It's very easy for you to say that "the same argument could be extended into many fields to show that many other products have a monopoly." It's quite another thing to frame your argument in terms of section 1 & 2 violations such that the way you have defined your "relevant market" actually pertains to product tying and preservation of monopoly power through anticompetitive acts. In other words, it's not enough that an anticompetitive act happened: it must also have been used to preserve power — and not just any power but monopoly power, and not just any monopoly power but monopoly power in a market relevant to the anticompetitive claims. And even if you manage to frame it this way, it still must pass through the crucible of the court, as it did in MS v DOJ.
In my mind, they will always be anti-competitive practices, whatever the letter of the law says.
Anticompetitive acts are not illegal in and of themselves. They are illegal for establishment or maintenance of monopoly power, however — and one can't apply that test via hand-waving. The Sherman act is very specific.
The threshold element of a § 2 monopolization offense being "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market,"...the Court must first ascertain the boundaries of the commercial activity that can be termed the "relevant market."
...and it was germane to the standards regarding product tying relevant to section 1 of the same act:
Proceeding in line with the Supreme Court cases, which are indisputably controlling, this Court first concludes that Microsoft possessed "appreciable economic power in the tying market," Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 464...Because this Court has already found that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (i.e., the tying product market), Findings ¶¶ 18-67, the threshold element of "appreciable economic power" is a fortiori met.
(Both of those excerpts are from the same Conclusions of Law document, of course.)
It's very easy for you to say that "the same argument could be extended into many fields to show that many other products have a monopoly." It's quite another thing to frame your argument in terms of section 1 & 2 violations such that the way you have defined your "relevant market" actually pertains to product tying and preservation of monopoly power through anticompetitive acts. In other words, it's not enough that an anticompetitive act happened: it must also have been used to preserve power — and not just any power but monopoly power, and not just any monopoly power but monopoly power in a market relevant to the anticompetitive claims. And even if you manage to frame it this way, it still must pass through the crucible of the court, as it did in MS v DOJ.
In my mind, they will always be anti-competitive practices, whatever the letter of the law says.
Anticompetitive acts are not illegal in and of themselves. They are illegal for establishment or maintenance of monopoly power, however — and one can't apply that test via hand-waving. The Sherman act is very specific.