I don't know if this has been posted yet, and don't want to go through the 74 (!) messages which have been posted since this afternoon to check....Regardless, here's some random things:
economist.com
Today's trustbusters are better economists, less prone to take a swipe against big and successful companies just because they are big and successful. Nobody at the Justice Department believes that Microsoft should be broken up.
Few consumers regret that Windows has absorbed what once were stand-alone applications such as fax programs, or that Intel now makes faster processors. On this view, the government may now merely be repeating the mistake it made when it once tried to stop Chrysler installing radios in its cars.
Gee, I didn't know the government tried to stop Chrysler from bundling radios? And to think, I had previously used this example as a case where applies anti-tying laws would be stupid!
The innovation argument is in there too; how it doesn't matter that prices fall--in technology, innovation is important. I do agree with the arguments presented.
Microsoft is of a firm that still thinks of itself as a start-up, which therefore needs to fight for every inch of territory
True. And that's what I love about them--they won't allow themselves to get fat and happy, they always stay hungry. This is a good thing, be in for companies or sports teams (side note to Dan: The Pack isn't looking quite so hungry this year, but they already won the SuperBowl last year, so I guess it's someone else's turn, right?) or whatever. |
