IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/ueaccp/2021_05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

U.S. v. Microsoft: Where did the time go?

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Ennis

    (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Antitrust law enforcement is sometimes criticized for taking too long to obtain results. On the one hand, slowness has potentially harmful consequences for market competition, consumers and business. On the other hand, fast outcomes are perhaps more likely to contain errors in fact and assessment and less likely to form good precedent. To provide a detailed examination of length of process and potential market consequences, the U.S. v Microsoft antitrust case is examined. The case took more than six years between the government receiving a complaint and the end of the last court proceeding. During the investigations and court proceedings, Microsoft’s market share of browser usage rose from less than 20% to above 90%. After the conclusion of the case, its market share declined relatively consistently for many years. A structural breakpoint is found near the end of proceedings, consistent with the long-run efficacy of competition law.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Ennis, 2021. "U.S. v. Microsoft: Where did the time go?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2021-05, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  • Handle: RePEc:uea:ueaccp:2021_05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ccp/CCP-21-05.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uea:ueaccp:2021_05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Juliette Hardmad (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.