The problem with reading internal memos is that they do not mean very much. It's all about anticompetitive effects. The Warren-Boulton testimony, now that means something.
And there is some rather interesting stuff at the end of that memo, like where he defines predatory conduct, and the following:
199.There is no guarantee, of course, that independent browsers will bring these benefits or reduce the monopoly power of Microsoft in the operating system market, even if Microsoft did not engage in exclusionary conduct. That is a matter for the market – not monopolists or engineers or economists – to decide. The important point is that the market should not be prevented by Microsoft's anticompetitive practices from making that decision.
If you look at the case, the government is going to prove that Microsoft is a natural monopoly, and is using predatory conduct to reinforce that natural monopoly. And, if you look at how the stock price has behaved since they filed suit, I think it is safe to say that investors either do not think Microsoft's predatory conduct will be banned, or think that its predatory conduct is not a very significant part of the barriers to entry that keep the Microsoft monopoly in place.
So, here's Boulton, basically admitting that, if you enact the restrictions on Microsoft's behavior that he says earlier in the report would not harm Microsoft's legitimate interests (with all of the attendant costs those restrictions would impose), there is no guarantee that the benefits of competition in the OS market will accrue.
I don't know . . . I think the government may have some problems. |
