Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (34587)	11/22/1999 5:12:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

It's clear, John, that you must not have noticed how the antitrust law defines monopolies. Microsoft meets the definition. Apple doesn't. Apple can price its products as it chooses because ultimately the consumer can substitute another product, such as a PC running Windows. Apple can charge what it wants to because it doesn't have a monopoly share (greater than 70 percent) of the market for personal computers. Microsoft, on the other hand is bound by different rules, because the law says so. I know that's hard for you and many others on this thread to understand, but the law is the law, folks. Judge Jackson has not yet laid down the law, but the facts he has presented (and he didn't make them up) clearly show Microsoft in the legal position of a monopolist. As to the pricing of Windows upgrades, all it takes is evidence showing consumers were hurt to trigger sanctions under the antitrust law. While one may argue whether there is sufficient evidence to justify charging $49, rather than $86, there is plenty of other evidence in the fact finding document that would allow a court to conclude that consumers were hurt, either by pricing or by not being able to run competing software efficiently. Every judge that has addressed this issue is conservative. Judge Jackson was appointed by Reagan and is no liberal hothead. Judge Posner, the mediator, is even more conservative in his approach to antitrust law, and is a recognized expert with a bias toward free market solutions. Judge Bork, who has made many comments on this case, is so conservative that the Senate wouldn't even approve his nomination to the Supreme Court. And Bork is convinced there is an antitrust violation here, which is so obvious it doesn't even require stretching the existing law. This is a case where the experts on the CONSERVATIVE side recognize antitrust abuses. Never mind what the liberals think. It doesn't even matter! The investment community is betting on a settlement. I hope they're not disappointed.