Duncan,
Thanks. It's an interesting article.
search.washingtonpost.com
.........................................
Microsoft's contention is that consumers benefit
from wide-open markets, where competitors slug it
out without the state's interference. And in this
new age, technology moves so quickly that no firm
can establish monopoly power for long -- and
certainly can't use it to push up prices.
Too bad Microsoft didn't fight harder for those
principles -- and didn't buy a little wealth
protection. Instead, two years ago, it signed a
consent decree, pledging not to force computer
makers that use its operating system to use any
other product. The government says it violated that
decree, but Microsoft contends that its browser is
"integrated" and so exempt.
Jackson's ruling is only temporary, and big
computer makers, including IBM and Compaq say
they'll keep shipping machines with the browser
anyway. (Hardly a surprise -- it's free!)
Jackson's decision, which Microsoft is appealing,
bodes ill for the company. Instead of simply ruling
on the consent decree, the judge is turning this into
another massive antitrust case.
What's worse is that Joel Klein, the politically
adept assistant attorney general, is now encouraged
to keep dogging Microsoft's steps. "The Justice
Department is not going to let Microsoft leverage
its monopoly power any more," says Steve
Newborn, a former antitrust enforcer at the
Federal Trade Commission. "And that's much
more significant than this particular case."
................................. |
