At war with Microsoft economist.com
To repeat as usual, it all fits. Business is war, and litigation is business by other means. Bill's former favorite magazine weighs in again, lead editorially, in a manner that might not be expected to win his affection back. I quote the last couple paragraphs. I should leave it go without comment, but the friends of Bill here got me in a sarcastic mood.
The preliminary injunction requested by the Justice Department neatly sidesteps these objections. It would like the court to make non-Microsoft browsers more available to consumers. It also wants computer makers to be able to determine the design of the first screen shown on a new computer, presumably in response to what customers say they want. Both measures would loosen Microsoft's grip, while leaving it free to innovate. If the court sees fit, both rulings could be in force within weeks. Neither calls for intrusive regulation.
Except in the minds of Microsoft's PR metaphor war shock troops, of course.
As the investigation proceeds, the Justice Department, egged on by Microsoft's enemies, could seek harsher remedies, designating Windows an "essential facility" and obliging it to carry competitors' products; controlling Windows' pricing; or even breaking Microsoft into "Baby Bills". On present evidence, that would be unwarranted: the law is designed to protect consumers, not Microsoft's competitors. But monopolists have a responsibility to act with restraint. If Microsoft refuses to change its ways, the next antitrust action may need to contain something more drastic.
Responsibility? Restraint? We don't need no stinkin' restraint. It's all beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, so why should we have to deal with these stupid laws?
For WSJ readers, my good buddy Robert Bork has a piece on the editorial page today. Seemed quite compelling to me, similar in tone to the commie rag quoted above. I'm sure others will feel otherwise, of course. Microsoft must be free to imitate! er, innovate! I'm looking forward to some innovative language usage as all that email gets explained away, of course.
Cheers, Dan. |
