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: Bearded One who wrote (18512)	4/19/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Eugene Goodman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Bearded One You are right. I was wrong. Krugman did not comment on the validity of the use of increasing returns in his article. I was misled in reading the article. Krugman writes, He [Cassidy] argues that the theory of increasing returns is crucial to the case against Microsoft--which is true .... Anyway, increasing returns are equally crucial to the case for Microsoft--as a reason why trying to break it up would be a bad thing. This is, indeed, a very unusual theory since it can be used to prove both sides of a case. It would seem to me that this is like using the Law of Gravity to prove that Newton's apple could fall both down and up and rain can fall up. In writing that "trying to break it up would be a bad thing." it appeared to me that Krugman had evaluated the economic case for and against Microsoft and had decided that the theory had no [or at least less] validity in the case against MSFT than the case for. But I am guessing. I was not successful in finding other comments by Krugman on the case. Have you found any? Thank you for the paragraph that you quoted from the Cato Institute article "Policy and Path Dependence" that markets are "ill suited to organize new-technology items..." I will add the start of the next paragraph: "There are problems with both parts of the argument." The authors then shoot down the lock in of inferior technology because of path dependency. If there is no lock- in even with the example given by Brian Arthur, all there is left is a badly flawed theory- Dairy Whip for lawyers with the scientific validity of Astrology, it would seem to me. I really find it incredible that the QWERTY story should have such broad acceptance even though the authors show that it is a myth. They say, "QWERTY....the foundation case for path dependence, the story that is told over and over again.... is false. Virtually every bit of it." And even more incredible is that the proponents have not come up with another example of lock in path dependence. The reason for the lack of an abundance of examples of lock-in, I believe, is that it is so easy to break out of a locked-in path even without relying on the DOJ. Netscape is doing this by publishing their code so that they can improve their browser/OS much faster than MSFT. It is incredible that the theory is formulated using immutable technology. In Arthur's "Adoption Payoffs", Technology A, the inferior one continues to rise at a slope of 0.1 payout for each apoption, forever, and the superior technology increases at a slope of 0.3, forever. Neither makes any improvement to their technology, customer service, nor to their marketing. One could argue that since changing technology was not a part of the theory, it should not be an accepted basis for the DOJ Law Suit. Gene