So, it's back to the same old retreads, the same old cast of chartacters from the last time around.
Are you sure you're not talking about us, Gerald?
Not surprisingly, perhaps, in light of this reading list, I still think the government in this case has a very serious "socialist calculation" problem: how do they plan to prove logically that their proposed remedies to decouple Windows from IE and to regulate the natural monopoly that they have proven Microsoft to be will make consumers better off?
If the government shows that Microsoft broke the law, why should the government have to prove anything about their remedies? We don't prove that sending a bank-robber to jail reduces bank robberies. We don't calculate the economic loss when a big executive goes to jail, either.
Maybe I'm confusing 'remedy' with 'punishment' here. In my view, punishment might be better--not necessarily economically, but just to prove a deterrent to future behavior of that sort from other companies.
So fine them 10 billion dollars, take away their biggest moneymakers (Windows OS and Office), publish the source code, break up the company, force them to fire a bunch of their executives, and to hell with the economic consequences. We're a big strong country, we'll deal.
Just a thought-- I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but what's wrong with it? |
