a quick blurb on antitrust

after reading over thirty antitrust cases on vertical restraints of trade, i am convinced that the original intent of preventing large companies from colluding with one another to gain absolute control of the market has been lost. they are brought by whiners hoping to use the antitrust laws to gain a competitive advantage when they didn't think of something first. oh my god. this is so ridiculous. look at the parties in this case.

r.j. reynolds v. philip morris - the two biggest names in the tobacco industry were duking over PREFERRED SHELVING SPACE. no joke. philip morris thought of a program with retailers that would give them promotional displays, and since r.j. reynolds didn't think of it first, they whined and took philip morris to court.

anyway, it's become my gut feeling that if you weren't smart enough to think of a business plan first, tough luck.

as to the microsoft antitrust cases, shut up. don't knock on bill gates for being a genius.

the itunes antitrust case? don't knock on steve jobs. as much as i hate ipods, that was some brilliant marketing. i don't even know what the case is about, but i'm sure it's stupid.

antitrust laws were enacted to promote competition. but now they are often used to hold back a competitor that, through good business planning, got ahead. fortunately, for the most part, courts call bullshit on these cases.

this mini-rant has been brought to you by starbucks.