1. Consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds, but does that mean that we can all breathe easier due to the fact that Microsoft, as you say, "face[s] even one smaller competitor" in the form of, say, Linux or IBM or maybe even Apple, in the OS market?
You may be right, but it really depends on how you define the market. For example, do you define the market as the set of all operating systems? Or the set of all operating systems which run on x86 PCs and can run old DOS and Windows 3.1 programs?
2. How, if at all, does the fact that software is "far too complicated and constantly changing to permit managements to restrain competition without overt collusion" affect Bork's analysis of the Microsoft case?
Both software and military hardware are complicated, but perhaps for different reasons. The fact is, when we talk about monopolistic software practices and Microsoft, we're talking about a few dozen of products, or even just a handful if we restrict ourselves to the OSs and IE. When we talk military hardware we talk tens of thousands of products. That's just one difference. So I'm not sure that you can replace one term with the other.
So in my view, no smoking hypocrisy gun just yet, though these are intriguing comments of his. |
