Editing Coercive monopoly (section)

==Antitrust==
The ability of firms in a coercive monopoly to increase their profits through setting prices above competitive levels brings about the need for antitrust law. There are examples in history wherein a firm that is not a [[government-granted monopoly]] is claimed to have a coercive monopoly, and [[antitrust]] action has been initiated to resolve the perceived problem. For example, in ''[[United States v. Microsoft Corp.]]'', the plaintiff's finding of fact alleged that Microsoft "coerced" [[Apple Computer]] to enter into contracts resulting in the prohibition of competition.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-proposed-findings-fact-0 |title=U.S. V. Microsoft: Proposed Findings Of Fact |website=Antitrust Division |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref> Eric Raymond, an author and one of the founders of the [[Open Source Initiative]], says "The thing a lot of people somehow missed is that the courts affirmed the findings of fact – that Microsoft is indeed a coercive monopoly."<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Krause |first1=Jason |last2=Learmonth |first2=Michael |url=http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,27574,00.html |title=Silicon Valley, AOL TW React With Caution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070514062319/http://www.thestandard.com/article/0%2C1902%2C27574%2C00.html |archive-date=May 14, 2007 |website=[[The Industry Standard]] |date=June 28, 2001}}</ref> 

Another disputed example is the case of ''U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa)'' in 1945. The court concluded that Alcoa "excluded competitors."<ref name="polyconomics Antitrust"/> The ruling is heavily criticized for punishing efficiency and is quoted below:

<blockquote>It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Alcoa |vol=148 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=416 |pinpoint=431 |court=2d Cir. |date=1945 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/148/416/1503668/}}</ref></blockquote>

However, antitrust law varies across the United States and the European Union. Specifically, in the U.S. monopoly pricing is not regulated. Whereas the European Community (EC) considers excessive pricing as an abuse of dominance and those involved can be fined or subject to prohibitory orders.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gal |first1=Michal S. |title=Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two Systems of Belief about Monopoly? |journal=The Antitrust Bulletin |date=March 2004 |volume=49 |issue=1–2 |pages=343–384 |id={{ProQuest|201064375}} |doi=10.1177/0003603X0404900109 |ssrn=700863 |s2cid=55640455}}</ref> This difference in regulation highlights the need to level out antitrust laws across the world in order to control this exclusionary and exploitive conduct in coercive monopolies.