This paragraph from the NYTimes comes as no surprise to anyone. Let's face it, Mr. Gates studies, idolizes and is intrigued by the economics of monopolies in the JD Rockefellar, JP Morgan fashion. It's obvious that he fashioned his company, as it became larger, into that which intrigued him. You have to hand it to him he reaped the field he sowed. Who knows, he might even be proud, in some perverse way, that his company has been declared a mean monopoly at possible huge expense to loyal stock holders (you know, wow I really, really am a JD Rockfellar). All that had to be done was for MSFT to stop their monopolistic, unethical, inhumane business practices and I think (IMHO) they would be a larger and more profitable company than they are today (maybe MSFT stockholders could force them to do such). The easy remedy is for MSFT to stop misleading, lieing, bullying, and taking advantage of consumer computer ignorance with their monopolistic practices and this all might go away pretty quickly (you know all the stuff they taught us in grade school). MSFT could embrace and partner with innovative small companies instead of trying to destroy them. I doubt that their ego will allow such to happen, however. Neucomb, as any average attorney that has just got his ass kicked would normally do, is already talking about taking it to the Supreme Court (at obvious huge costs and disrespect to loyal stockholders, by the way I receive income from a trust which has MSFT and I have urged them to dump [which I will immediately revisit with them with this FOF in hand] because of MSFT's business practices, i.e. this will cost shareholders dearly).
My prediction, MSFT's ego will never allow them to admit their mistakes and they'll become IBM II while small companies buzz around them innovating at light speed.
"As his product-tying finding showed, Judge Jackson has accepted not only the Government's version of events but also its theory of the case. The Justice Department had consistently argued that while Microsoft operated in the high-technology economy, it was an old-fashioned monopolist. The practices at issue, the Government charged, are similar to those used since the turn-of-the-century days of smoke-filled railroad cars -- threats and restrictive business contracts forced on other companies." |
