▁of ▁fact ▁– ▁that ▁Microsoft ▁is ▁indeed ▁a ▁co er ci ve ▁mon opol y ." ▁Another ▁disput ed ▁example , ▁is ▁the ▁case ▁of ▁U . S . ▁v . ▁Al umin um ▁Co . ▁of ▁America ▁( Al co a ) ▁in ▁ 1 9 4 5 . ▁The ▁court ▁concluded ▁that ▁Al co a ▁" ex cluded ▁compet itors ." ▁ ▁The ▁r uling ▁is ▁heavily ▁critic ized ▁for ▁pun ishing ▁efficiency ▁and ▁is ▁quoted ▁below . ▁ ▁It ▁was ▁not ▁in ev itable ▁that ▁it ▁should ▁always ▁anticip ate ▁increases ▁in ▁the ▁demand ▁for ▁ing ot ▁and ▁be ▁prepared ▁to ▁supply ▁them . ▁Nothing ▁comp elled ▁it ▁to ▁keep ▁dou bling ▁and ▁red ou bling ▁its ▁capacity ▁before ▁others ▁entered ▁the ▁field . ▁It ▁ins ists ▁that ▁it ▁never ▁ex cluded ▁compet itors ; ▁but ▁we ▁can ▁think ▁of ▁no ▁more ▁effective ▁ex clusion ▁than ▁progress ively ▁to ▁em brace ▁each ▁new ▁opportunity ▁as ▁it ▁opened , ▁and ▁to ▁face ▁every ▁new com er ▁with ▁new ▁capacity ▁already ▁ge ared ▁into ▁a ▁great ▁organization , ▁having ▁the ▁advantage ▁of ▁experience , ▁trade ▁connections ▁and ▁the ▁el ite ▁of ▁personnel . ▁ ▁Adv oc ates ▁of ▁a ▁la isse z - f aire ▁economic ▁policy ▁are ▁quick ▁to ▁assert ▁( bar ring ▁private ▁criminal ▁conduct ) ▁that ▁a ▁co er ci ve ▁mon opol y ▁can ▁only ▁come ▁about ▁through ▁government ▁inter vention , ▁and ▁defend ▁these ▁situations ▁as ▁non - co er ci ve ▁mon opol ies ▁in ▁which