Mani,
Yes, did not find it relevant.
You didn't find the fact that Microsoft was never declared and regulated as a monopoly relevant? I am surprised, since you argument relies on the fact that Microsoft in fact is a monopoly.
The fact that you are a monopoly is not as clear cut as for example the tax code. The tax code states clearly up to what level of income you pay no taxes, then you pay say 15% marginal rate, all the way to 39.6%. As your income increases, you know right away what part of the tax code applies to you. Under normal circumstances (when Clinton is not president) they can't retroactively change the taxes to your disadvantage.
In Microsoft's case, there is no clear marker up to when they need to operate under the rules of non-monopolies, and since when they need to obey the monopoly rules.
In my opinion, I would find it at least somewhat fair for the DOJ to tell Microsoft: Starting day D, (barring our finding being overturned by appeals court) you will have to obey the following rules: x, y and z. If you satisfy conditions A, B and C, you will no longer be considered a monopoly, and you no longer have to obey by the rules x, y and z.
Joe |
