Suit accuses Apple and AT&T of monopoly

Speaking of walled gardens ... you might find this story interesting. They NY Times says a little more about it in this article. This seems to get at the heart of the "wireless Carterfone" discussion that I have been blogging about. This seems to be an attempt to get from the courts what you (they) could not get from regulatory agencies. On the other hand, it is exactly what you could (and should) expect using ex post regulation.

Microsoft and the EU

As has been widely reported (see this), Microsoft's appeal of the European Commission's decision failed. This story in BusinessWeek and this one in the NY Times begin to contemplate some of the longer term consequences of this decsion beyond Microsoft.

Some of the other cases mentioned involve Qualcomm and other firms that have technologies that are either de facto or de jure standards. If the markets that these firms compete in benefit from standards, should the firms whose technology has been adopted by the marketplace be subject to government scrutiny or intervention? Should a de jure process exempt firms from this?

More broadly, how much should the government manage competition? Do consumers benefit from this kind of intervention? What should be the standard for determining "successful" government intervention?

Update (2007-09-18): Here is an analysis from TLF.

Update (2007-09-21): I found this item to be a worthwhile read. Do you agree or disagree?

Update (2007-09-25): This article suggests that smaller companies may begin "venue shopping" in the EU in order to gain favorable rulings. Is this a good development?

Update (2007-09-26): This item is critical of the EU ruling, and frames the Antitrust fine as a tariff that bypasses the WTO. Do you think this has merit?