Funny How Microsoft's Views On Responsibility To Competitors Differs Based On ...
31.12.69
The objective of our antitrust laws is to promote competition. Successful
companies—even monopolists—are encouraged to compete vigorously. Foremost Pro
Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 544 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A monopolist, no less
than any other competitor, is permitted and indeed encouraged to compete aggressively on
the merits.”). Monopolists are encouraged to innovate and are entitled to retain the benefits
of such innovation. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 281 (2d Cir.
1979).
Moreover, a monopolist is not required to help its smaller rivals or shield them from
the rigors of competition . Olympia
Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d
370, 375-76 (7th Cir. 1986) (“A firm with lawful monopoly power has no general duty to help its competitors.”); Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900 F.2d 566, 568 (2d
Cir. 1990) (“Antitrust la
w . . . does not require one competitor to give another a break just
because failing to do so
offends notions of fair play.”).
Source: Techdirt