Thanks for the link Scott, that CSPAN conference is a bit long, but worth a view for those interested in a good summary of the DOJ’s strident anti-msft position.
Three particularly telling moments:
1) One panelist expressed fear: “Do we want msft in control of our nervous system?”
This individual was expressing his concern about msft’s advance into the entry level server
market. He fears expansion of an entity which he feels has already gained too much
control over information technology. But, it must be noted that this is the very entity that
brought about a single platform computing environment which helped enable the information
revolution, the revolution that increased the productivity and empowerment of everyday
people. MSFT must do everything in its power to help ameliorate this type of fear.
2) One audience member’s opinion: Maybe you should have named this conference,
“Why msft’s competitors hate msft.”
This pro-msft comment came during the open question portion near the end of the
conference. The moderator hurriedly reminded this individual of his time limit, which was a
convincing, albeit unconscious, acknowledgment of this statement’s truth. Perhaps this question awakens a grim reminder of the dangers of turning antitrust law on its head in order to prosecute fierce competitors.
3) Another audience member questioned: “How does the government’s intervention
benefit the consumer?”
Ken Starr, answered by presenting what he felt to be a prime example of msft harming
consumers. He stated that at one time intc had expressed the intention to develop its own
o.s. software to support its new chips. Starr said that msft informed intc that if the latter
entered into the o.s. software market, then msft may choose to withhold further windows
support for intc processors. Mr. Starr cited this as an example of msft stifling intc’s ability
to innovate; to the detriment of consumers. He didn’t address the fact that both msft and
intc are under continuous antitrust scrutiny due to allegedly conspiring to act as a single
entity (the so-called WINTEL duopoly) in order to monopolize the PC industry. Mr.
Starr’s example of consumer harm is a double-edged sword, since on the one hand it’s an
example of msft protecting its turf, while on the other, it’s evidence of an adversarial
relationship between msft and intc. The latter would be viewed as a good thing by the
antitrust gurus, or at least one would think. Following the same logic, if intc expanded
into the os software market, they would be a far more dangerous monopoly than either
company alone. By controlling both hardware and software, intel could corner the entire
PC market. Ken Starr’s statement seems more an example of a governmental Catch-22,
than an example of msft’s harm to consumers. Perhaps, more accurately, it’s an example
of microscopic vision; magnifying the minute, at the expense of the larger picture. This
would, of course, stifle the ability of both msft and intc to innovate, for fear of government
prosecution no matter what they do. |
