It doesn't. Anti-trust is a way for governments to break up competitors with established interests, not to protect consumers. The kinds of monopolies anti-trust is "needed" to break up are only possible in an environment with heavy regulation and intervention anyhow.
The last time they went after microsoft they picked the most ridiculous cockamamie complaint they possibly could, then let it drop as soon as they had their judgement. Coincidentally, that was around the time microsoft started pouring money into lobbying. The lesson is: Pay your taxes and you won't get in trouble. Both the official kind and the unofficial kind.
I've heard that the anti-trust action taken against microsoft was to force them to include back door access into windows.
Probably that too. The famous "NSA key" was discovered in windows around that time. Come to think of it, I wonder if the cream pie incident was staged by deep staters to emotionally pressure gates. The suit against microsoft was a joke. If they seriously wanted to go after them they'd attack them for the practice of making deals with manufacturers to suppress competing operating systems, not because he went into competition with netscape.
Bottom line, "anti-trust" has nothing to do with ending monopolies, only enforcing them. It's in the interest of governments to support monopolies, not break them up.
(post is archived)