Microsoft took actions against companies which presented threats to its monopoly. Those actions were predatory and simultaneously showed that even if Microsoft's monopoly was 'natural' at one point, it was no longer so.
I beg to differ.
Yes, Microsoft did engage in predatory conduct. They were mean and nasty.
But there is no evidence in the trial that I'm aware of showing that the bad things Microsoft did actually increased its market power over what it would have otherwise been or account for why the Intel compatible PC operating system market is still monopolistic.
In other words, Microsoft looks bad, but when stacked up against the mighty "applications barrier to entry," which is the true source of Microsoft's market power, the things Microsoft's bumbling idiot "executives" did were a tempest in a teapot.
I'll even go you one further: I would argue that, based on the evidence at trial, there is no way to be sure, even if Microsoft were to stop its shenanigans tomorrow, even with all the remedies in the world, conduct or structural, that the PC OS market would ever lose its monopolistic tendencies or become competitive. I think Warren-Boulton made this very point in his testimony, in connection with unbolting the browser and the other conduct remedies he was discussing.
In my opinion, that's the fatal flaw in the government's case, and I'd bet money that's why the feds and the state AGs are having such a hard time coming up with a suitable remedy. |
