I've always been confused by the "natural monopoly" defense of Microsoft. The traditional natural monopolies were the regulated utilities, a status I'd assume Microsoft doesn't aspire to. Though it may fit there, under the "essential facilities" theory, too. The new wave "natural monopoly" theory is Brian Arthur, network effects, increasing returns, etc.; that analysis also tends not to favor Microsoft.
In the middle, we have the Chicago School, I guess, which says let'em be, more or less. I'm not sure exactly how much legal standing the Chicago School has, it certainly has adherents on the bench, but I don't think that interpretation is enshrined in case law as the one true view of antitrust. I'd give that school more weight if I understood how, exactly, the "market" demanded that the world standardize on a self-destructive OS like Win 9X. But then, I've always been puzzled by the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience, before I had it firsthand, I was a lot more circumspect about the inevitable Microsoft world takeover.
Cheers, Dan. |
