My arguments are basic - a businessman owns his property, and has the right to enter voluntarily into any contracts he wishes, as long as no force or fraud is involved. A free marketplace will reward the best products and the best producers. It's interesting that the antitrust problem is directly correlated to the mess we're currently experiencing in Florida. Nearly everyone wants to see the presidential election determined by giving the victory to the candidate with the most votes. Most people are disgusted by the idea that the winner may instead be determined in the courts, under the influence of conniving lawyers.
People trust a voting contest more than a modern legal contest.
There are a lot of similarities between voting at the booth and voting in the market. Every purchase of a product, be it software or an internet service contract, should be seen as a consumer's freely chosen vote in favor of that product over others. We can trust people to vote for the products they find most valuable, and accept their decision when one company is declared the winner over another. Antitrust law replaces the fair voting results of the markets with its own tainted ballots, confusing to read, punched by competitors, stuffed by lawyers into boxes, and counted by the unsteady eyes of unelected bureaucrats. It is no mere coincidence that Microsoft's archenemy David Boies, the lawyer who argued that antitrust laws should overthrow the market's verdict on Microsoft, was down in Florida recently.