Argument #3: Microsoft harmed consumers.

Dr. Locke's argument : Dr. Locke argues that since Microsoft produces valuable products and the company and its founders are rich as a result, that a conclusion that Microsoft has harmed consumers is unfounded. He then goes on to dismiss any possibility that consumers could be harmed by a company giving a product away for free.

Response : Dr. Locke incorrectly assumes that the only method for proving consumer harm is direct correlation and that the only possible harm that can come to consumers is higher market prices. In fact, the general consumer can be harmed in many more ways, many in which the consumer is not even aware. When a market monopolist utilizes illegal tactics to eliminate possible competition it discourages the funding of any further ventures of attempts to compete with the monopolist. It is a foolish business venture to attempt to enter a market where an existing company holds a stranglehold and has illustrated in many instances a willingness to go to any length, legal or otherwise, to maintain that position. The consumer is harmed in that any possible competitor that could possibly bring unforeseen innovations is never allowed to make it to market, much less compete with the market monopolist.