Here's some argument for that assertion that Microsoft causes higher prices:
"The district court erroneously held that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in a relevant product market. The market defined by the court is too narrow because it excludes the most serious threats faced by Microsoft?s operating systems, including the competing platform technologies that were the objects of the allegedly anticompetitive conduct in this case. In addition, the court did not find that Microsoft has the power unilaterally to raise prices in or exclude competition from the operating system business, the touchstone of monopoly power. See, e.g., Indiana Grocery, Inc. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 864 F.2d 1409, 1414 (7th Cir. 1989); Ball Mem?l Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1335 (7th Cir. 1986). In fact, the COURT FOUND that the evidence was INSUFFICIENT to establish that Microsoft ever charged a "monopoly price" for Windows. (See Findings ô 65.)
"The court DETERMINED that there was INSUFFICIENT evidence to conclude that, absent Microsoft actions, greater operating system competition would exist today. (See, e.g., id. ô 411.) " |
