I agree with your scenario. As far as the competition being hurt instead of the consumer, unfortunately that probably is not relative in this case. The case will be did MSFT use preditory marketing practices to force computer makers to use IE vs Netscape, was it the intent of MSFT to "destroy" Netscape by using its monopoly power, has MSFT intentionally altered JAVA to make it non-usable on Windows platforms with the intent of the elimination of JAVA, and so on.
I agree, I like MSFT products generally, but unless we are going to turn over our entire legal system to polls like we apparently have the political system, the effectiveness of the product will probably not affect the legal stratagies or legal outcome.
Look at Standard Oil. Under the monopoly, oil product prices were going down, not up. The consumer was getting a good, standard product no matter where he went, so he didn't have to worry about getting literally blown up when he lit his kerosine lantern. It employed a huge amount of the population and contributed to many businesses being started. But woe to anyone that either crossed them or was targeted for takeover. Kickbacks from the railroads, selling under production cost to force competition into failure or merger, and threats to retailers that carried any other brand were the order of the day.
That, in the end, was what did in Standard. Sadly, the days of Standard as a monopoly were already numbered as the Texas oil fields were coming on line, and Russia was also producing a lot of oil. Both of these were resistant to Standard and had the power to fight back.
JMO |
