Microsoft’s “Monopoly”

Dear Bureaucrat,

I recently watched a statement from the European Union Commission on TV about not reaching an agreement with the American monopoly-accused software development company Microsoft. It seems the European Union is accusing Microsoft for using its broad market penetration as advantage in competing with other software companies, so-called monopolistic behavior.
      The Commissioner Mario Monti expressed his concerns about not being able to reach an agreement with Microsoft. But as I understand Microsoft has agreed to paying the European Union officials and politicians more than six hundred million euros in fees to cover the “costs” of the consumers. The European Union claims consumers have been over-charged when purchasing Microsoft’s products as a result of the company’s monopolistic pricing policy.
      I am anxious to know how the European Union has calculated this “real” market price, which is the basis for concluding consumers have been overly charged. My interest is both personal and professional, since economic theory of today does not permit the calculation of a “real” market price differing from the actual price paid. The “market price” concept as used in the media is only a far-reaching simplification of reality, which may serve a purpose in news reporting. It is however not scientific.
      Your prosecution of Microsoft is thus based on a breakthrough in fundamental economic theory. This new knowledge should be made publicly available!
      The “market price” as discussed in simple news reporting rests on the fallacy of believing the market is an involuntary and predictable structure. The real market, however, is only an abstraction of thousands, millions, or billions of actors coming together for the sake of personal or group benefit. Every transaction is always the result of two or more parties voluntarily agreeing on exchange of values to personally be better off.
      The “market price” is therefore whatever the parties agree upon as exchange for the values (products, services, money) in each specific transaction. Thus market price is a concept only applicable to individual transactions, not to the market as “a whole.” Standardized pricing policies does not change this fact, since every transaction is a voluntary agreement between seller and buyer. Standardized pricing means only more transactions are taking place using the same amount of exchange for the product or service.
      This makes the case against Microsoft and the European Union’s aim to stop “monopolistic” market action very interesting. There is no coercive selling of software in the market (as far as I know), which means the real price is the market price. This, the unexistence of coercive “selling,” makes it impossible for consumers to pay prices above the market price.
      The case against Microsoft is thus based upon an important scientific breakthrough in economic theory. Your status as a public institution should call for your announcing in public of such breakthroughs in the name of the “public good.” Or your anti-monopolistic actions are really a full-fledged scam in order to redirect power from consumers and the market to political coercive measures.

Please RSVP,

Per Bylund
Citizen