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: Harvey Allen who wrote (19687)	5/24/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Harvey, if I understand your argument correctly, you are making the traditional argument for prohibiting vertical restraints and tying of two products, which Bork and Priest both say has been discredited and which Bork says is not the argument that DOJ should be making here. It is basically premised on the argument that it is possible to make two monopoly profits, one in the monopoly tying market and one in the presumably competitive tied market, which Bork says is impossible. If you think Bork and Priest are wrong and that two monopoly profits are possible, fine, but I'm trying to see the case from Bork's perspective and learn the arguments he might make. As for Bill intransigence, you may be right, and a breakup remains my personal remedy of choice. But Chairman Bill's petulance should not be a consideration in antitrust policy (or any other), and the thrust of what network effects literature I've seen seems to be in the direction of regulation, not structural remedies like breaking it up.