To: Maurice Winn who wrote (190 ) 12/18/1997 5:44:00 PM From: dougjn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 29986
Maurice, you can clearly out last me on this subject. I remain wholly unconvinced by your arguments, beyound the degree to which I have already agreed with them. But I don't have that much additional to add and don't care enough to go through the exercise of again meeting argument point by point. Let me also say I disagree strongly with your never met a monopoly you didn't like argument. I think US Justice is right to go after Microsoft on its tying of its Netscape Explorer to its operating system. The only thing that makes it a close call is that Msft doesn't sell Explorer. Imagine if Microsoft told computer makers they could either add Explorer for another $60 wholesale, or not get any operating system from Microsoft at all. I agree with parts of your monopoly argument. It is true that most business, and certainly high margined very successful ones operate with partial, quasi monopolies. The goal of all consumer advertising is to create a mindshare strong preference (call it a monopoly if you wish) for Coke or Gleem or Kellogs Corn Chips or Lexus. A preference that is strongly cultural and resistant to feature by feature comparison and pricing (or at least that creates a built in prejudice in the comparison, because the consumer Identifies with the brand.) Tech companies are constantly running to maintain one year or six month or three month or whatever technical advantages, and looking wherever they can to have brand identies, and especially to gain their form of "mindshare". Best typified by how much time and effort it takes to really learn to use many types of software well. And then to convert your legacy work, if it uses sophisticated features. (I still haven't swithched from Lotus 123, although I probably will. Eventually.) That said, competition is the only thing that seperates a government bureaucracy from a private one. Private enterprise doesn't like competition, even though it is what differentiaties it from the government. Actually private unregulated and unbridled monopolies are the worst of both worlds and potentially quite evil. Absolute despotisms w/out even fig leafs of social motivation. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very much a capitalist. But capitalism absolutely needs government regulation, usually with a rather light hand. (1929-45 proved that to virtually all Americans. Who think. And read history.) Some antimonopolistic regulation can be good for business. I can easily, but must not be, overdone. I think Justice is currently about right on Microsoft. Which I have no antipathy for whatsoever, and in fact greatly admire. Doesn't mean that the animal juices up in Redmond don't need a bit of light and gov't intervention now and then. I think the judge's dicision was just right, very light. I think Gates response was Purile (giving only a two year old version of Windows to those who opt out of the bundle), and that he will loose Justice's reassalt. There have been times, certainly, when Antitrust has gone to far in the US. Generally its been pretty light, and seems that way to me here w/Microsoft. Note that no one is asking that the company be broken up or some other stupid thing just because it is winning to many markets. If it wins cause it has resources and can pay more and as better programers, or provides better true integration, etc., god bless. What would you say if Microsoft said to all PC makers: "If you want Windows 95 or 98, you have to agree to take our Dog product, Microsoft Money, pay us $60 a machine for it, and agree to not ship any product that leaves your shop w/any Quicken product, whether or not the customer has specifically requested it and paid extra." Doug