It's clear, John, that you must not have noticed how the antitrust law defines monopolies. Microsoft meets the definition. Apple doesn't. Apple can price its products as it chooses because ultimately the consumer can substitute another product, such as a PC running Windows. Apple can charge what it wants to because it doesn't have a monopoly share (greater than 70 percent) of the market for personal computers. Microsoft, on the other hand is bound by different rules, because the law says so. I know that's hard for you and many others on this thread to understand, but the law is the law, folks. Judge Jackson has not yet laid down the law, but the facts he has presented (and he didn't make them up) clearly show Microsoft in the legal position of a monopolist.
It is clear that you don't understand how Judge Jackson defined MSFT's market in an attempt to consider it a monopoly. Judge Jackson limited the market to a specific brand of processor, namely Intel. This is ludicrous. Using this exact same logic, Apple has practically a 100% market share of the Motorola PowerPC-based market with no ability for the consumer to substitute. Sun has nearly a 100% market share for the Ultra Sparc-based market, with practically no ability for the consumer to substitute. As a matter of fact, for all of the markets mentioned, MSFT has:
-the smallest market share,
-the least pricing flexebility,
-the most competition, and
-the least power within said market.
This was not discussed in the FOF, yet it is perfectly clear following the judge's most unrealistic definition of OS markets.
there is plenty of other evidence in the fact finding document that would allow a court to conclude that consumers were hurt, either by pricing or by not being able to run competing software efficiently.
I didn't see it. Show me where. |
