This is clearly irrational says you, Bill, and Ayn. Me I don't know, I think rational is as rational does, and Bill's sort of overdoing the legal self-representation thing. He was sounding a bit random in that email to the Post today, sort of throwing off every line that's been tried for the past 6 months in one stream-of-consciousness thing.
Microsoft isn't the first company to get in antitrust hot water, but its defense strategy is somewhat unique. To cite one equally rich and powerful company that sees merit in a somewhat different approach, we have to go to Bill's former favorite periodical.
Unlike Microsoft, Intel has a clear idea of the obligations placed on a dominant firm and has a reasonable record of sticking at least to the letter of antitrust law. (from economist.com
And, to recycle this weekend's post again,
The Justice Department's action on Microsoft has everyone missing the point infoworld.com
Popular Idea No. 5: Microsoft shouldn't be penalized for its success. Microsoft isn't being penalized for its success. Should it lose in court, Microsoft will have been penalized for violating the consent decree it signed, as well as the antitrust laws of this country.
Microsoft's existence depends on enforcement of intellectual property laws. Just like you and me, it has to obey the others, too -- it doesn't get to pick and choose.
I mean, who's the whiner here anyway?
Cheers, Dan. |
