Duke:
Thanks, any further summaries would be extremely welcome. Re. this "crime", I would still agree with the DOJ on the boxmaker issue. To point 1, just terminology; whether it's a "violation" or a "crime" is irrelevant, there will still be a remedy. It seems self-evident that consumer harm would result if MSFT used its power to pressure manufacturers into not building devices that incorporate other competing OSes. That's how I get past points 2 and 3. To point 4, I agree that MSFT's monopoly is not illegal, but I don't see how copyright has any bearing on the exclusion issue. To point 5, agreed, but again it doesn't bear directly on the exclusion issue. If you are a monopoly, you lose some control over these business arrangements, and specifically I believe you're not allowed to threaten to withhold the product in question for any reason you see fit. I know for a fact that MSFT did exactly this to several overseas boxmakers a few years ago. MSFT to boxmaker X: "If you agree to build network computers, we will not sell you the Windows OS on which 99% of your business depends.". MSFT to boxmaker Y: "If you build even one Linux box, your price for the Windows OS on which 99% of your business depends will be double that of your competitors, even if you continue to sell the same or greater volume of Windows-based machines." I can't believe that's allowed by the anti-trust laws, but I'm no lawyer. It's certainly unsportsmanlike and it's the kind of behaviour that's made MSFT so many enemies. Needs to stop in my view. MSFT doesn't need to win that way. Perhaps Balmer can put a "kindler, gentler" face on the Redmond giant. |
