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 (18748)	4/25/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Krugman's bottom line is that because because high-tech competition is "necessarily, a competition that ends up being won by a handful of players," i.e., risky, the reward to the winners must commensurate with the risk. He argues that, antitrust litigation reduces those potential rewards, and will as result deter companies from entering what he calls the "demolition derby" of high-tech competition. As he puts it: "[I]f they know or suspect that too much success will be punished--that anyone who does too well will become a target of envy-driven litigation--they will have that much less incentive to play hard." slate.com I signed up for a trial subscription to Slate to read THIS? Give me a break! BTW, Krugman does do one good turn: he links to a very good compilation of MS/DOJ related stuff by a professor of economics at NYU named Nicholas Economedes. ( raven.stern.nyu.edu ) This guy's own writing is mathematical gobbledy-gook. Check out his paper on "The Incentive for Non-Price Discrimination by an Input Monopolist" [angling to become an expert witness, are we?;)] and you will see what I mean. However, the links to the various pleadings and articles about the case are excellent for anyone who wants to read the primary source materials on this litigation.