Tippet:
"What am I missing?
You miss nothing; we view the same data with differing bias.
First, I think the DOJ is specifically defending Netscapes faltering market position, by demanding Microsoft include in their packaging a competitors product. This is unprecedented. Thus Bill Gates' valid Coke-Pepsi-combo analogy. Fords in GM showrooms, Whoppers in Happy Meals, and Viagra scripts accompanying personal vibrators -- ludicrous.
You mentioned, "that seems to be unfair competition from the standpoint of other internet browser folks. Fair enough; there are several other browsers (about eight) out there, including Opera that I sited earlier. If Reno's motive is to level the playing field, wouldn't the landscape be more consistent if they forced Microsoft to bundled and distribute all eight browsers? Wait a minute - I'll get out my HTML for Dummies book and soon there'll be nine - what a distribution network, and fer free.
Why do we assume perpetual market dominance by Microsoft? Not all dominant, products survive in long-term, free-market competition. For example, there was good old Betamax, Sony's video format. Did it survive in free market competition? Did IBM maintain market share within the PC market? Did Nintendo hold on? In fact, can you think of corporation that maintained perpetual dominance in a free market?
"If Microsoft isn't stopped, future innovators will be curtailed." I'm not even going to respond to that DOJ contention.
On a more altruistic note -- why would the DOJ go to the expense of fighting Microsoft from such a debatable legal foundation? What will be the cost to American tax payers -- might run into the billions if Mr. Gates fights this to the wire? Could this deprive the voting public of funding for popular programs such as infrastructure maintenance and improvement, new schools, posh new prisons, AIDS research, support to the Endowment for the Arts (to buy more urine containers), etc..???
Ciao, Ted
|
