This has nothing to do with monopolies or antitrust. This falls under the auspices of intellectual
property. MSFT licenses the OS, it does not sell it, therefore it retains cosiderable control over
what and hwo resellers treat thier code. The argument would not seem useless or silly if you
took an objective look at it.
OK, let's look at it objectively. Let's use an example. What if Company M built 90% of the roads in the US. And they also happen to build cars. As it turns out, the roads are designed with a complicated interface, and the Company M cars are designed to work well on them. But they change this interface regularly, requiring people to regularly upgrade their cars. Moreover, since other car vendors want to be able to ride on these roads, they need to design their cars to work on them. But Company M has the advantage of being able to design their cars at the same time that they design the roads, so their cars come on the market sooner. Moreover, by the time the competition is able to bring compatible cars to the market, the roads are soon to been upgraded to a new rev that is incompatible. Thus, Company M has created a basis for continually generating more capital for itself to continue to maintain its monopoly as well as extend it to other markets, and the add-ons for the car are just a start.
So my question is: Do you think that the government should not interfere or should this company be allowed to continue its practice? BTW, this is really just another example ala the "desert island" one I gave you before, to which you never responded. |
