Sometime last year, I claimed in the forums that anti-trust law actually protects the large, monopolistic companies that it is supposed to prevent from developing.
I think that the anti-trust laws are harmful to competition in general, as I do for a lot of law, on the basis that true competition needs a very basic set of laws and that any law in addition to that and that any additional law favors companies with large, experienced, legal departments and the money to carry out multi year legal campaigns. While people try to put in protections against the laws being used improperly, the variety of judges, complicated political processes, and the pressure of simply threatening a lawsuit weaken those protections.
Apparently, there is a lawsuit threatening Google
which is competing with "incumbent" Microsoft, among other companies. Rather than Microsoft pressing the lawsuit themselves, some other companies associated with Microsoft are doing it instead. This would avoid the literal protections from the anti-trust law and allow Microsoft to attack Google through legal antitrust law. I think that the actual lawsuit is bogus, but grandstanding State attorney generals can be very scary, as one of them pressured Craigslist
to make severe unnecessary changes to the adult services section of their website.
I'm not claiming that this is a serious threat to Google. I am claiming that anti-trust law is very vulnerable to abuse and we would be better off without it. In practice, the companies that are supposed to use it, small businesses competing with an incumbent, usually ignore it, as they tend to compete very well.