Making Microsoft Safe for Capitalism
around.com
This article is a year and a half old, but it's still the best thing I've read on this issue, and a lot better informed that random comments you'll read on SI. Antitrust gets batted around in the MSFT/NSCP group from time to time, without much light being shed. Either you believe that antitrust law means something, or you believe Microsoft is being unfairly persecuted. Even if you're in the latter camp, I think the article above is a good read for its inside portrait of Microsoft. A lot of high-ups get quoted, including Ballmer. Bill himself is supposed to have written a response, or at least signed his name to one, but he didn't consent for it to be reprinted.
For what it's worth, I think that Microsoft is clearly trying to put Netscape out of business by giving away software, and I don't think that should be legal. I also don't think effective antitrust action against Microsoft is likely. The Federal judiciary is full of Reagan era appointees who probably don't particularly hold with antitrust, and the wheels of justice grind slowly.
One thing I gotta say about post #9, though. DOJ lawyers may not be saints, but I think it's fairly silly to say they are greedy. They aren't going to make anymore than a government salary, one way or the other. Sore losers? What stake to you think DOJ lawyers have in Microsoft or its competitors? Their job is to enforce the law, and I think giving away software to try to drive a competitor out of business can reasonably be interpreted as "predatory pricing", which is an element of antitrust law.
Cheers, Dan. |
