Note to Users

    When we began researching and planning the content for this site, we planned to create a comprehensive guide to the history of antitrust cases and a source for information and discussion relating to current and future cases. Along the way, we made a discovery that we think adds enough to make the site a springboard into something more—a new way of looking at the study of the antitrust movement.

    During our intensive research, we realized a trend was developing. This trend runs throughout the history of antitrust, and seems to make the antitrust issue a good microcosm with which to teach students about the proceedings of the US government, from the legislative to the judicial.

      The history of antitrust action is a shaky one, with periods of both lethargy and energy, the only constant being ambiguity. The policy makers of this country learned long ago that clear, unambiguous language can be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Bills that contain this sort of language inevitably contain loopholes, which were impossible to foresee when the bill was made. Eventually, potential violators will find and exploit these loopholes.

    As a result, legislation often takes an all-encompassing, albeit vague approach in defining violations, ultimately leaving room for broad interpretation. This is one reason the judicial branch was founded. Many court cases are not clear-cut, guilty or not guilty decisions. Often, the court is called upon to articulate exactly what was intended by the law as enacted by the legislators before judging whether or not the defendant violated that law. Thus this approach to legislating leads to an endless, though absolutely necessary, string of engaging debates on the subject. This debate often results in changes in the very intended meaning of the original legislation, sometimes at the hand of changing social climates.

 
    For instance, think of the way the potential interpretation of the right to bear arms has changed after the emergence of an ever increasingly violent society armed with ever increasingly accurate killing machines. No matter your stance on the issue, scarce few would have suggested removing or censoring this constitutional right 200 years ago when America was a more untamed place. The ability to change our interpretation of legislation is one of the properties that makes our system so strong; the system is open to change, and able to adapt and evolve to better fit society’s needs, should those needs change, without overhauling the entire system and rewriting the constitution.

 
    Antitrust is another good example of this trend of ambiguity and debate in US politics. The Trust Issue is a thorny one, with opponents touting the American ideal of the free market and trustbusters citing the economic benefits of competition and claiming the right to intervention on behalf of the consumer.

    Besides the essential debate over the entire concept of antitrust law, there is also the debate over the validity of leveraging as a violation of antitrust laws. More debate is centered on whether prevailing economic conditions, such as global competition and the faster pace of the business world, make the old systems of antitrust analysis obsolete. Antitrust, now a hundred years old, still confuses and confounds the judiciary and sparks electric debate among political and economic analysts.

 
    Hopefully, by reading about the history of antitrust action, including the conditions that prompted debate on the subject and the initial actions in response to The Trust Issue, and by reading the case study of the antitrust actions taken against Microsoft, students of antitrust will become students of US politics and earn a deeper understanding of the nature of the debate and the action that drives our political system.