To: Kevin Hay who wrote (19436 ) 5/19/1998 4:49:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to
Keith, you're doing pretty good with the cheesy high school debate techniques. You got a way to go to catch up with Regimond, though. He's the master.is John Galt" crowd to start seems to be slow in getting started.The real question is whether Mr Klein has sufficient evidence to justify a full-scale antitrust action against Microsoft. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Windows is a monopoly-it was legally acquired and both the computing industry and its customers have benefited from the product's ubiquity and from Microsoft's commitment to keep improving it. However, there is plenty of evidence already in the public domain of the software giant's systematic use of its market power and vast wealth to destroy a competitor which fleetingly appeared to threaten the dominance of Windows. Netscape may have contributed to its own difficulties, but Microsoft reserves a special ruthlessness for any company that dares to take it on directly. It is a safe bet that the Justice Department and the 13 state regulators have gathered enough material to establish a prima facie case. The Economist May 9, 1998, editorially speaking. A well known commie rag, out trying to sell advertising. The hard boiled Microsoft investor, who knows the value of a good monopoly when he sees it, obviously understands things better.
