To: Daniel G. DeBusschere who wrote (45747 ) 5/31/2000 10:28:00 PM From: Bob Duncan Respond to
Daniel, I agree with you. I have a vested interest in Microsoft doing well because a) I develop software for Microsoft porducts and b) I have a lot of call options. I agree that the supposed remedy does not really solve the problem, which was simply that Microsoft gave away a product that cost X amount to develop, similar to Ford giving away cars to catch up with Honda. I saw this as a problem when Microsoft began the practice and as they grabbed market share I sold some of my Netscape stock and shifted in to Microsoft because, while it was obviously predatory pricing, I figured by the time the legal system caught up with Microsoft it would be to late. In many ways it is, IE has around an 80% browser share (at least that is what I have heard recently) and the judge is FINALLY about to rule. It could be 2 or more years before anything perm. is done. The issue at stake in my view is, are the antitrust laws we have on the books enforceable, and if they are, should actions be taken to punish a company that is proven to have broken antitrust laws if a remedy is not really possible? No one can change the fact that predatory pricing (ie using profits from all other businesses MSFT was able to produce for "free" a browser that Netscape, because it did not have a monopoly to leverage, had to charge for) allowed IE to overtake Netscape. I don't see how this remedy will change this, however, I think the issue is more along the lines of if a company leverages a monopoly, is proven guilty is a court of law, but yet the damage done to a competitor is so severe no remedy will repair the damage, what should be done?
