L'Institut Economique Molinari publie un article (repris par TechCentralStation) qui remet en cause la politique anti-trust américaine et les faux arguments qu'elle utilise pour parvenir à ses fins. Le cas étudié concerne les attaques à l'encontre de la compagnie Intel :
Legal problems have been mounting lately for computer-chip giant Intel. First it came under attack from the Japanese antitrust authority. Then its main competitor on the microprocessor market, AMD, announced at the end of June that it had filed a complaint in the United States against its rival for limiting competition. (...)
Today it is difficult to imagine another sector in which prices are decreasing so rapidly. Who would deny that in 2005 you can buy a computer for much less than only ten years ago, and one with a capacity which makes its 1995 ancestors look like dinosaurs? Yet weren't Intel and Microsoft, the bêtes noires of the antitrust authorities, already what they are today, that is to say "monopolies"? Since, in principle, having a market share of 80 percent is wrong only when it has a negative impact on the consumer, it is the latter that must be proven. It is not enough to update "restrictive" or "discriminatory" business practices. Bearing in mind the recent evolution of prices for consumers, the decision should be in Intel's favor, and it should have been the same for Microsoft. (...)
(...) the hypothesis of Intel's abuse of a dominant market position detrimental to the consumer is seriously discredited. If the authorities do not care for this fact, this only suggests that history repeats itself: antitrust policy has nothing to do with consumer protection and everything to do with producer protection.
|