Reback, et al. chillingly portray the ominous end of that path: "It is difficult to imagine that in an open society such as this one, with multiple information sources, a single company could seize sufficient control of information transmission so as to constitute a threat to the underpinnings of a free society. But such a scenario is a realistic (and perhaps probable) outcome."
Which is also what I hear from all the friends of Bill here, when the context is something other than antitrust enforcement. Another thing where I'm hobbled by that famous hobgoblin of small minds.
On Brian Arthur and network externalities / path dependence / whatever, funny thing is, from the secondary reporting I'd heard on it, it sounded to me like a pro-Microsoft argument. I swear, I read about 5 articles claiming it showed Microsoft was a natural monopoly, and should be left alone, before I read an article that talked about what Brian Arthur actually had to say. I guess that was naive software engineer Bill not educating the people properly again.
I wouldn't judge economic arguments any more than I'd judge legal arguments. Most of Bill's posturing seems to be on extralegal grounds, though. The big theoretical argument here for Bill always seems to center on Objectivism, which is about as grass roots as Bill's PR campaign. Despite what comes out of Cato, there's even dissention in the libertarian camp.
The DOJ law suit is based on what might happen if the government does not help. Microsoft will get a 70 % [isn't this what Netscape has now?] or higher market share, then they raise their prices and screw the helpless consumer.
Right. I haven't heard anyone claim 70% for Netscape of late; if they still got it, good for them. This "consumer" theory of antitrust is a Reagan era thing, as I understand it, though it's been presented in the past as somehow enshrined in case law. Hard for that to happen without any cases, you'll have to ask Reggie about that one. Microsoft already has something well in excess of 70% in OS. That puts it within the scope of antitrust, in terms of predatory pricing and leveraging the monopoly. I know, it's just not fair. Others have to live with it, or have managed to live with it in the past, I'm still at a loss as to why Microsoft is supposed to be immune. That's the exclusive right of Major League Baseball, as I understand it.
Cheers, Dan, repetitious as usual. |
