June 28, 2001
A federal appeals court unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's order that Microsoft Corporation be broken up. The appeals court criticized Judge Jackson as being a media hound and unprofessional in his treatment of the Microsoft case. The appeals court suggested that a breakup of Microsoft would be inappropriate anyway since breakups are normally reserved for businesses that have grown primarily through mergers and acquisitions, unlike Microsoft. However, the appeals court concluded that Microsoft had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a 111-year old document which states that "every person who shall... attempt to monopolize... any part of the trade or commerce... shall be deemed guilty of a felony." Microsoft hopes to reopen settlement negotiations as a result of this ruling.
It is impossible for a successful businessmen to not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For instance, in the 1945 antitrust case United States v. Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), Judge Learned Hand judged that "It was not inevitable that it (ALCOA) should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel." If applied consistently, The Sherman Antitrust Act would impoverish America. Presently, the Act is used as a tool by some businessmen to attempt to destroy their more successful competitors. The Sherman Antitrust Act should be dissolved immediately.