Well, I may have misinterpreted you. The statement you made that
confused me was:
>Since the DOJ has not to date stated that giving the browser away is
>illegal, and assuming the DOJ doesn't stop the practice, does this
>mean that MSFT's IE will in all likelyhood replace Netscape's NAV as
>dominant browser?
Thus, you raised the point of DOJ action against MSFT, and since you
were discussing dumping, I evidently incorrectly took you to be
implying that the DOJ was concerned about "dumping" in trying to
restrain MSFT in current browser distribution. Thus my point about
what DOJ was actually trying to do in dispute with MSFT about browser
distribution.
So, therefore we agree that DOJ is not trying to prevent MSFT freely
distributing browser, just prevent them from OEM agreements requiring
bundling in ways that would be adverse to competition.
Re: comment that NSCP "dumped" then raised prices. Yes, in a sense,
that is true, except at the time almost all current browsers were
being given away free (eg, Mosaic from UIUC). There was little in
the way of competition. Not unreasonable IMO for MSFT to gain entry
by distributing free, even if they charge later, provided they don't
leverage with other methods to essentially eliminate all competition
before raising prices. Although I take MSFT at face value when they
say to plan to keep it "free", in as much as if they dominate OS, and
it is bundled with OS always, then essentially it is free like the
transmission in your car is "free" with the purchase of the engine
and body. |
