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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (8056)	5/27/1998 7:59:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Respond to of 74651

Why so much Anti-trust attention on Microsoft? RE:"As mentioned in the last post, I believe MSFT has less control over OSes that appear on PC hardware than SUN and AAPL have over OSes that appear on SUN and AAPL hardware. I'd like to hear your reasoning on why MSFT's dominance on PC hardware is more worthy of government attention than SUNW and AAPLs total dominance on the SUN and AAPL hardware." IMHO, in the short and intermediate term, Microsoft can do more irreparable long term harm to the PC market place than Sun or Apple. Certainly, questionable or disreputable business practices should not be tolerated by any of the firms mentioned. I would guess that the potential for abuse in the market place combined with solid evidence of such abuse is the probable cause of the DOJ's actions. That's what they say. We shall see. HR PS: In the PC OS market place, Apple has a 3.8% market share, SUNW has 0%, I believe. Any Apple misbehavior multiplied by its tiny influence in the market place may not generate as much concern as even the slightest Microsoft misbehavior magnified by its enormous impact in the market. Hence, the focus on Microsoft. By the way, your question is excellent. It cleaves the issue along one of its major facets. Though SUNW and Netscape may benefit, the anti-trust laws are actually designed to protect "competition" in the marketplace, not "competitors". In fact, the existence of competitors is irrelevant. Anti-trust regulators have been known to proceed against combinations in restraint of trade even where there are no competitors. An important focus in the past has been the existence of barriers to entry into the marketplace, especially artificial barriers to entry. This of course calls up the issue of what constitutes a market, and upon this very point the entire mater hinges. Watch Microsoft to focus on "innovation" and "market stability", and watch the US DOJ to focus on "artificial barriers to entry", both attempting to define the applicable market in such a way as to fatally prejudice the other's case. Again, I say your point is very well taken.