remember, Japan and Korea got into trouble precisely because they didn't restrain their anticompetitive behemoths.
Your analysis is based on the presumption that MSFT engaged in "illegal monopolistic behaviours" and so therefore the trial is a *good* thing because it will force MSFT to cease such behaviour. While certainly you're entitled to your opinion, you can't expect those who do not believe that MSFT is engaging in anti-consumer, anti-competitive practices in the first place to follow you through to your end conclusion that this will ultimately make MSFT "more dynamic" than it would otherwise have been.
I personally find the DOJ's case, in addition to being fairly weak from a legal perspective, ultimately very anti-consumer. I disagree that this case is going to "assure greater competition" in the marketplace because quite frankly I don't think that's been a problem to begin with in the software or PC sector. Ultimately a DOJ success in this trial is going to *hurt* consumers, IMO, because it's going to reward companies who simply weren't very good at responding to the marketplace in the first place. It's not going to encourage more competitive (and pro-consumer) activities by other companies in the sector, just the opposite! MSFT has not shown any indication of stagnation, or of falling into "non-dynamic" patterns that would require government intervention to change!
Boies is a terrific lawyer. I can't imagine a lawyer making a better case with what they had to work with than he has. But ultimately the government's charges are based largely on outdated and inappropriate economic theories. Most importantly, no matter how you slice it, MSFT doesn't satisfy the tests that would establish it as a monopoly. High market share alone does not make a monopoly. The portions of this case MSFT appears ready to lose are due to its wholly unprepared legal team. If there's any benefit to this trial, it will be I hope to shatter some of the arrogance that apparently was pervasive throughout the higher echelons of the MSFT.
At any rate, I also disagree that a Republic DOJ would have taken this case on. I don't think the histrionic political commentary by jfd or the appropriately named "blankmind" is particularly enlightening in this regard, but I agree broadly that at the heart of this lawsuit is a Democratic belief in government intervention and protectionism as the hallmarks of a healthy society, as opposed to a more Republican view that in general eschews such obstructionism.(at least in the marketplace). |
