Fiddlesticks yourself. Both have been accused of illegal anti-competative behavior. In the case of Microsoft, it seems they've simply taken technology when they couldn't get what they want (see Stac and a sellection of current lawsuits against them). In the case of Wal-Mart, the accusation concerns them changing the conditions of contracts after-the-fact. Do you know what happens when a retailer or vendor doesn't pay a vendor on time for a huge shipment? Do you know how much it costs to go up against an army of lawyers from a company rich enough to buy the entire airline industry? I'm sorry but I don't consider bully tacticts and illegal behavior to be a normal part of "competition".
Read the article, it's all about how Wal-mart beats their competition by offering goods at the lowest possible price. That is competition.
They offer goods at the lowest possible price by raping their vendors, in my opinion. Whenever one company has the power to rape another and have it say, "Thank you. Please rape me again!" the balance of power is not healthy. It wasn't healthy when Microsoft forced hardware vendors to sign an agreement that they couldn't sue Microsoft for patent infringement if they wanted an OEM Windows 95 license and it isn't healthy when Wal-Mart forces vendors to sell them goods below costs that will keep that company healthy. If you were willing to sign a contract that allowed me to take anything I wanted out of your house any time I wanted or a contract that let me decide how much food you got to feed your family every day, just how much control would that suggest I had over you and just how "willing" would you really be if you signed a contract like that?
Sure, those vendors have a "choice". Try to stay in business while being abused by the big boy or go out of business. Yeah, that's some choice. The same sort of choice Eastern European women are given when they are forced into prostitution.
Concentration of power is bad. Lack of choices and competition is bad. There is no difference between having to pay a Microsoft a fee when you buy a computer and having to pay a sales tax if your only other choice is, "Don't buy a computer." There is no difference between Wal-Mart forcing prices on a vendor and government price controls if the only other choice is, "Then don't sell those goods." Those are non-choices. Neither Microsoft nor Wal-Mart is quite at that point in many areas but they're getting close.
Retailers don't exist to serve vendors. Retailers and vendors exist to serve consumers.
"Sure, those vendors have a "choice". Try to stay in business while being abused by the big boy or go out of business. Yeah, that's some choice. The same sort of choice Eastern European women are given when they are forced into prostitution."
Comparing Walmart to East European prostitution rings? Once again, 'fiddlesticks'.
"Concentration of power is bad. Lack of choices and competition is bad. There is no difference between having to pay a Microsoft a fee when you buy a computer and having to pay a sales tax if your only other choice is, "Don't buy a computer." There is no difference between Wal-Mart forcing prices on a vendor and government price controls if the only other choice is, "Then don't sell those goods." Those are non-choices. Neither Microsoft nor Wal-Mart is quite at that point in many areas but they're getting close."
If you can't see the difference between walmart negotiating prices and government price controls then you need a basic class in economics.