<<I'm hoping Janet Reno's replacement will give Microsoft the option of settling the lawsuit instead of pressing to ruin one of America's most successful companies.>>
MSFT will probably await for the appeals process to run its course. One opinion on that outcome:
Microsoft's Appealing Case,
cato.org
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's final judgment in the Microsoft case indicates that he has fallen hook,
line, and sinker for the government's flawed arguments. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit is unlikely to be so accommodating. The Justice Department's case will crumble as a
result of procedural errors, flawed fact-finding, wrongheaded legal conclusions, and Jackson's
preposterous plan to break up the software company most directly responsible for America's high-tech
revolution.
From the same source, more on Judge Jackson's logic:
Microsoft's "Applications Barrier to Entry": The Missing 70,000 Programs
cato.org
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson bases his ruling against Microsoft on the claim that the company’s
monopoly in operating systems is protected by an "applications barrier to entry" made up of 70,000
Windows-based software programs.
.
.
.
The overwhelming majority of the 70,000 Windows applications that make
up the supposedly impregnable barrier to entry either never existed as unique products, no longer exist, or
are totally out of date. When only unique Windows applications are counted—setting aside various
versions of the same program—the number of applications is a small fraction of the judge's count.
Moreover, survey data indicate that the needs of active computer users are satisfied by a very small
number of applications. That means the barrier to entry into the operating-system market is nowhere near
as impregnable as the judge has claimed, which in turn helps explain many of Microsoft's aggressive
business tactics to preserve its market position. Because the judge's most essential finding is clearly
erroneous, it cannot support his conclusions of law.
And while we are (or at least I am) on the subject of government involvement with private business activities:
Open Access, Private Interests, and the Emerging Broadband Market
cato.org
The debate over open access to new cable broadband networks marks the first significant entry of Internet
service providers (ISPs) into the great game of using the regulatory process to escape market realities.
Quite simply, a legal requirement opening local cable networks to ISPs allows ISPs to avoid investing in
alternative networks. It is tempting for businesses in this position to take a regulatory shortcut, asking
lawmakers to force existing networks to let them piggyback on others' investments.
.
.
.
In either forum, allowing government to determine
what speech the networks must carry is a dangerous precedent. This analysis shows future policymakers
the conflict between the First Amendment and mandatory open access.
That is probably enough from Cato for a Saturday.
Dale@iwonderiflibertariansareallklackknights.org |
