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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23657)	11/22/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Windows 98 bug patch problems continue news.cnet.com Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this headline for old times sake. How many definitions of "the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience" aka "harm to consumers" aka "innovation" can be arranged out of these words? Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23657)	11/23/1999 2:07:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

More on Judge Posner: MS mediator known for intellect usatoday.com Posner has not been involved with the case, and has a reputation for a relaxed attitude toward big companies. But he has a link that might worry Microsoft, despite its public comment that "we look forward to working with Judge Posner." Posner is a champion of Lawrence Lessig, a legal scholar helping guide Jackson's February verdict. Posner lobbied the University of Chicago Law School to hire Lessig, then a Supreme Court law clerk, in 1991. Posner called Lessig "the single smartest person I have ever met," according to a Chicago Tribune account in 1998. Microsoft views Lessig as biased and has tried to get him disqualified as adviser to Jackson. So Microsoft faces a threatening lineup: Talks mediated by a man who honors a scholar that Microsoft considers its enemy. That enemy, in turn, is shaping the possible February verdict with recommendations to the judge who already has blistered Microsoft. Personally, I think it's a mistake to assume that, just because Lessig is Posner's protege', they share the same political views. It's kind of the same mistake people made when they assumed that, because Lessig went to that Chicago school, he's part of the "Chicago School." The only way to get to know Posner is to read his stuff. Plus, it is important to keep in mind that, had Lessig been appointed, he would have been a special master, with some authority over the case. Posner's role is as a mediator in voluntary mediation. If either DOJ or Microsoft does not like the way the mediation is going, they can walk at any time. That will make Posner more palatable but blunt the direct (as opposed to persuasive) impact he can have on the case. On Posner's views, I think the following is probably closer to the truth: He is regarded as a libertarian conservative who believes in individual freedom rather than government proscription. He's mum on Microsoft, but published interviews show he's not shy about controversy. Posner has said that street drugs should be legal, and that moms should be able to auction children to the highest bidders, instead of passively putting children up for adoption. Posner is affiliated with what's called the Chicago School of economic legalism: Big isn't necessarily bad; real monopolistic behavior is rare; the market is better than the government at policing economic matters. But, I want to make it clear, I certainly am not an authority on Posner. As for that Register article, it's nonsense. His major work is generally considered to be his 1990 The Problems of Jurisprudence, and an analysis of it suggests he is anything but of the right. In his introduction he wrote: "Judges do not want to be the handmaidens of the powerful. But if independence means that only judges decide cases as they like... it is not obvious that an independent judiciary is in the public interest; the people may be exchanging one set of tyrants for another." He noted that "obedience to rules is just one virtue among many, and it cannot be given its proper weight without considering the content of the rules and other pertinent social and moral values". Economic Analysis of Law, I guess, didn't make it to this guy's reading list. One thing the Register article does do is to summarize Posner's views on the appropriate role of government in regulating natural monopoly, but he misses a lot of the subtlety in Posner's arguments (such as the fact that the article assumes vigorous antitrust enforcement), and fact that Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation, although it has some valuable insights, is thirty years old and deals primarily with the arguments of the '60's. The Register's refutation of the views expressed in that article as they arguably apply to Microsoft is absolute gibberish: Posner defined the concept of a natural monopoly after a consideration of regulated monopolies such as water, power, telecoms and cable. He saw a natural monopoly as a circumstance where it is economically more efficient for a single organisation to have a monopoly, in order to avoid duplication and wasted investment. However, the view fails because of the evidence that Microsoft has arguably suppressed innovation as a result of the monopoly that it enjoys, and the anti-competitive practices that have discouraged significant competitors. With IBM failing with OS/2, who could succeed? It seems unlikely to most observers of the present situation that the market can readily self-correct for the Microsoft effect, as Posner would probably postulate. The arguments for a natural monopoly are that the overhead is reduced, and zero competition allows less money to be spent on sales and marketing, and more on the product. But economies of scale have become of secondary importance compared with market share, which is a consequence of the law of diminishing returns (more customers result in better value for the customers). However, the evidence is that consumers are not getting a better deal, that Microsoft is increasing its prices for Windows (unlike nearly all other hardware and software products) so making historically unprecedented profits. This makes no sense to me. If anyone can make heads or tails of this gobbledigook, please post.