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: Eugene Goodman who wrote (18874)	5/3/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

But how do you compensate for the class of predatory behavior, "raising rivals costs", without increasing the cost to the consumer? Gene, I think that's what that Economedes article I linked to a while back was all about. If you have a monopoly over an upstream market but also compete in a downstream market, Economedes mathematically "proves" that you the monopolist have an incentive to raise the costs to your downstream competitors, using this unfair cost advantage to achieve a monopoly, or at least a competitive advantage, in the downstream market. I guess, to translate it into English, Microsoft, as the upstream OS monopolist, will use indirect means such as hidden APIs, delayed information releases and the like to raise the costs of its downstream rivals in the Windows-based Office Suite market. Now, of course, if Microsoft does not have monopoly power in the upstream OS market, the whole analytical house of cards comes crashing down -- unless you happen to agree with the Eastman Kodak case. ;)

To: Eugene Goodman who wrote (18874)	5/3/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>The WSJ put it well about a week ago.<<< The WSJ is in business with Gates. Therefore, nothing they have to say from this point on about Gates, Microsoft, or this case case be taken as credible. After all, they aren't straight journalists, anyway. They are rich ideologues with a business rag and axes to grind. Who nevertheless, when their own pocketbooks aren't involved, are often worth reading, if you stay away from the editorial pages. Cheers, Chaz