Sonny, Since we are in agreement with much of what you say, I will just comment where I think there is some possibility of remaining misunderstanding. Let me make a couple of points.
1. I think Microsoft got it's monopoly by being the better competitor, if not entirely, at least in general.
2. I think Microsoft is entitled to it's monopoly.
3. Nothing that I am aware of automatically makes a monopoly illegal in the U.S. In some cases the government defends the right to a monopoly (copyright, patent, etc)
4. My understanding is that a monopoly which acts "in restraint of trade" is acting illegally. Whether that be tied sales, intimidating a third party not to compete, or whatever.
5. The Microsoft case is directed at Microsoft's abuse of it's monopoly power, not against the fact that it has a monopoly. The judge did not use the term "Illegal Monopoly", to my knowledge, in his Findings.
6. There is a presumption that ANY actions in restraint of trade (illegally eliminating competition) will have an adverse effect on consumer choice. This may come as much from the innovations which do NOT occur as they do from quashing those innovations which do.
7. Competition, in keeping with the established "Rules of the Game" is good for the economy, and the consumer. Competition which does not adhere to the established "Rules of the Game" has no place in a society which thrives on "free enterprise" and the "Rule of Law", any more than would the permitting of a Mafia "Business Enterprise" to succeed by ignoring the Rule of Law. Gee whiz, even in baseball, we require that players follow certain rules -- you cannot run to third base before first base.
8. Even though Microsoft has a monopoly, which it won fairly, it should not be permitted to run roughshod over the Rule of Law. It should not be permitted to run to third base before first and second bases. And it should not be permitted to act like the Mafia.
If we can agree, at least mostly, on that series, then we are pretty much in agreement with the Judge's Findings of Fact thus far. Now, as to what should occur as a result of those facts....well, I suspect that debate will go on so long as there are tech companies, and tech investors <G>..
tso |
