The rule of reason goes something like this:
In any vertical restraint of trade situation (e.g., a manufacturer telling a distributor how the distributor may distribute its products), you weigh the pro-competitive effects of the restraint against the anti-competitive effects to decide whether, under the circumstances, it is reasonable.
Of course, in Microsoft's case, the issue is simply whether it violated the Consent Decree. I don't think you get to the rule of reason, which is a basic precept of antitrust law.
My point is that, in the case of Compaq, based on the deposition testimony and other evidence I have seen in the press, I do not think an actual, completed violation of the Consent Decree has been proven, certainly not by clear and convincing evidence, which is the standard (my opinion only, of course, without seeing all the evidence -- maybe there is something I haven't seen where Microsoft actually told Compaq it would lose its Windows license had it tried to remove IE). Forcing them to keep the icon on the desk top does not, imho, violate the Consent Decree.
Microsoft has been made to look bad, and I think it's clear they would have said "no" had Compaq asked to take IE off. However, intending to violate it, even lusting after the opportunity to violate it, is not the same thing as actually violating it. |
