Celine,
By chance, I just read a section on antitrust in David Friedman's book _Law's Order_. On page 250, he wrote: "Despite the widespread belief that Rockefeller maintained his position by selling oil below cost in order to drive competitors out of business, a careful study of the record of the antitrust case that led to the breaking up of Standard Oil found no evidence that he had ever done so. The story appears to be the historian's equivalent of an urban myth."
The reason why Rockefeller did not sell below cost is because he had much more to lose from it than his small competitors.
Every time I have looked closely at what appears to be a reason to use force against a person or business that is not using force or fraud, I have found that using force makes the situation worse. And every time I have looked closely at a monopoly or near-monopoly, I have found that it got its power either by making a product better and cheaper than anyone else or by using government force. The Microsoft near-monopoly, for example, is based on government-enforced patents and copyrights.
Regarding your concern about "our nation" losing hi-tech jobs, I would say that individuals lose jobs, not nations. It certainly is sad when a person has to change jobs when he doesn't want to, but it's even sadder when a person is prevented from underbidding a person who has more opportunities.
I'll try to attend the chat on Wednesday. Thanks for bringing up lots of interesting issues.
Kelly