But, there is no connection that I can see made between that conduct which is definitely harmful to a competitor, and harm to competition, i.e., some measurable reduction in consumer welfare.
I would think that any harm to any competitor hurts competition by definition. Thus, the harm has to be offset by some benefit to consumer welfare. Assuming this make legal sense, then if the DOJ shows that Microsoft's actions did not benefit the consumer in any way, then there was no offsetting the harm they did to the competitor and thus consumer welfare was reduced.
Perusing the DOJ exhibits on the OEMs, I get a sense that we'll be seeing the following complaint from the OEMs: That they would have liked to have differentiated product lines, but that Microsoft prevented them. For example, a "kids computer," an "internet computer," a "geek's computer," all with different software and graphical shells available from startup. Note that Apple has shell differentiation with their 'At-Ease' graphical interface, their iMAC, and their regular Mac's. This differentiation would have enabled them to compete with each other on something other than price. Also, they claim in the documents that their customers want differentiation, but that Microsoft forbids them from doing it. My next post will have a letter from HP to Microsoft about this issue.
What do you think of the accusations (which the press seems to have accepted) by Steve McGready that Microsoft forced Intel to stop software research? That lack of research harms us, but is that a direct claim against Microsoft or is it just a demonstration of their power, or is it bubkis?
As for Hayek, I guess I'm going to have to read him. |
