David--You are totally missing the point. If it is true, this is a clear cut antitrust violation. A company with a monopoly position in the operating system market cannot legally add "features" like this to the operating system. They just can't do it. No wonder you seem puzzled by the court's decision. No court in America will uphold this.
Insitu:
You said: "A company with a monopoly position in the operating system market cannot legally add "features" like this "
The problem with your analysis is: who do you ask what can be legally added to a software program. Who decides this, you, Klein, Judge Jackson, the Supreme Court?
When you get a chance to read the court of appeals decision in this case, you will see that this was one of the concerns of the court when it admonished Judge Jackson that the courts should not dictate what software should be written.
The court of appeals clearly said that under certain circumstances a software vendor has the right to improve its software.
So your statement, that "no court in America would uphold this" is incorrect.
The problem with your opinion and the problem that the court of appeals struggled with is the very problem of the conclusion of your post.
Let's say, arguendo, that Oracle has a monopoly in databases run on Sun Servers. What is it... 90% of all network traffic runs on Sun?
That would mean that you, or someone like you would have to approve the addition of 11i, prior to Oracle adding it (integrating it with) their database.
BUT, you say, you don't have to run Oracle database, WELL, you DON'T have to run Microsoft Windows, even though both are the de facto standard.
Note the lack of harm to the consumer.
Note the difference between controlling your own invention and monopolizing a Natuiral Resource like Standard Oil.
Note the difference between a government created monopoly like ATT.
Note the difference between IBM controlling the Hardware market and then using that control to leverage a different market, the software market.
All of these issues were considered by the court of appeal in msII and their opinion at least last time did not find a "clear cut" violation as you have posted.
Perhaps, as an attorney (I believe you previously stated that you were an attorney, didn't you) skilled in the interpretation of anti-trust you might share with us the cases you are relying on that the court of appeals must have missed.
Judge Jackson seemed to confront this issue head on, after hiring a couple of Amicae to find him a way out. He seemed to say that his court of appeals was just, well how should I put it,....wrong.
.
.
.
...and come to think of it, this is probably which Silicon Investor does not add a spell checker which gives alternative spelling choices, how unfair would that be to WordPefect, I ask you!!!!! |
