I think you need to be a little more precise here. By PC, I'm assuming that you mean an INTEL based 8088(et al) instruction set device. If you do, you now need to extend the term PC to include the AMDs of the world who've built instruction set compatible CPU and companion chip sets.
What you're assuming is that the PC (using the definition above) architecture is indeed in the public domain. There is a limited amount of 'cloning' that occurs without the threat of litigation.
This assumption set gets a little murky, as we've seen in the past where BIOS code and the micro code on chip sets are indeed copyright(able). So I think your envisioning that the PC architecture is in the public domain. Let's assume that it is.
What would stop Microsoft from building a PowerPC line of computers tomorrow. This certainly doesn't fit the 'PC' architecture described above. Let's assume that they discontinue PC OS innovation today and place the current Windows OS intellectual property in the public domain a la open source.
Microsoft now directs all of their R&D towards the power PC. Is this a good thing for the market? Is it good for the shareholder? Does it benefit the consumer Probably a no in all cases.
Let's then assume that in 5 years, that this new MS computer has 70% marketshare? Does the bundling of the OS and the hardware exempt them from antitrust litigation. No it wouldn't.
Had Apple played their cards right and created an 'open' Macintosh, they would most likely be the subject of the lawsuit now facing Microsoft.
What ultimately got Microsoft into trouble was the predatory nature/posture they took when dealing with Sun, Netscape and AOL. It was documented. And when it played back in court it was pretty frightening.
What concerned the government the most was the fear that ultimately MS would (and could) charge whatever the monopolistic market would bear. By bundling for free those innovations that competitors would need to price does not really violate US anti-trust law. Separating the browser from the operating system is just a red herring. It is nonsense.
The real value of the internet economy is based on what is delivered to the browser. It shouldn't be the browser that is the issue. The browser is itself based upon a fairly open, well defined standard (HTML et al...). Ultimately the price of a browser would have been driven to zero anyway. No vendor would have been able to build a company around a product that is relatively easy to duplicate and must abide by a well published standard. The browsers would become freeware.
Did Microsoft stifle innovation in the browser market. They did not. Look at the quality of Netscape Nav, Opera etc. Did they stifle innovation in the OS market, no. Linux is an excellent operating system. Look at the Java OS.
The innovation in the OS and browser market continueds. But why haven't these products begun to approach the success of the MS products. The reason is that the consumer secretly wants a monopoly, defined as standard-bearer. They have benefited by this, in that the OS standards have fostered the huge growth in application products. This is another argument entirely and I'll stop right there.
Years ago in economics class we studied the laws of diminishing returns. Today, looking at MS, we see an example of the law of increasing returns, or first mover advantage with an install base exceeding critical mass. Is US antitrust law prepared for this type of market.
Not yet, but it better be. Microsoft is not an isolated case. Other 'monopolies' will clearly spring up in the internet economy where first mover advantage, and critical mass are the mantra.
Don't let anyone preaching the "beauty of frictionless economies", or the "democracy of the internet" fool you. The internet is in fact very fertile ground for the monopolies of the new millenium. These will certainly be knowledge-based monopolies built upon critical mass and first mover advantage.
|
