Well, NSCP had 90% of the browser market back in 95%, so according to DOJ's definition of monopoly, is NSCP a monopoly in 1995 ?
AOL had more than 13 Million customers in its internet service business, Is it a monopoly at that time back in 1995 ?
AOL used its monopoly position in the internet service business to force NSCP not to
be in the internet service business for three years, is it an abuse of monopoly power ?
Is it a violation of the ANTITRUST law of artificial dividing the market ? And NSCP agreed, is it a violation of the antitrust law ?
NSCP's then CEO sent a secret e-mail to MSFT and inviate MSFT to invest in NSCP ,
and said that will benefit both NSCP and MSFT , i.e NSCP and MSFT will divide
the market of browser. Is this against the law of Antitrust that companies should not divide the market ? Followed with NSCP suggestion , MSFT was invited by NSCP
to have a meeting in NSCP's office in June21 of 1995 ( That is why the meeting was held in NSCP's office of Mountain View, and not in MSFT's office), which was set to discuss how to divide the browser market between NSCP and MSFT, and how MSFT should invest in NSCP to help NSCP. So, it is NSCP which invited MSFT to invest in NSCP and to divide the market of browser. NSCP's is not happy with the discussion,
and know they will lose the contract of AOL to MSFT, then file a suit with DOJ against MSFT.
The whole story probably went like this:
In 1995, AOL was afraid that NSCP and MSFT will be in the internet service business
, which will hurt its monopoly position in the internet service business. So, AOL decided to used its power of monopoly in the internet service business to prevent MSFT and NSCP get into the internet service business. In 1995, NSCP had more than 90% of the Browser business, and is preparing to get into the internet service business helped with its monopoly position in the browser market. NSCP wanted to protect its monopoly position in the browser business so that it will easily get into the internet service business in the near future, so NSCP thought it is necessary to worked together with AOL ( i.e NSCP concentrated in browser market and AOL in the internet service market, i.e divide the market) , to prevent MSFT from successfully entering the browser market. In 1995, MSFT is ready to enter the browser market with its IE, and found the best way to get into the browser business is through AOL
's marketing channel, i.e AOL's 13 million customers.
AOL knew that NSCP wanted to protect its monopoly position in browser business, and MSFT wanted to enter the browser market back in 1995, and both wanted to work with AOL for different purpose. AOL decided to make the best use of the
fight between NSCP and MSFT, and its monopoly in the internet service market to
do both ways , and cut the best deal either with MSFT or NSCP so that it will prevent or delay NSCP and MSFT's getting into the internet service business. At that time ,
MSFT just started the internet service business, and try to enter the Browser market, so it also wanted to work with AOL which will help MSFT enter the browser business, and break NSCP's monopoly in browser market , and which will hurt NSCP
chance of entering the internet service business with its monopoly in browser business, and this will help AOL to continue its monopoly in internet service market.
So, the best choice for AOL is to give MSFT the contract. By doing so, MSFT's IE will break NSCP's monopoly in browser, and NSCP will never get a chance into the internet service market. While at that time MSFT's main business is not in Internet service ( Not even today), and by having an ICON in window, AOL had a parity position with MSFT. So the best choice for AOL is MSFT. However, if MSFT rejected AOL's proposal to put AOL's icon into window95, AOL can work with
NSCP as second choice. Since NSCP's only business is browser in 1995, and NSCP
knew that its future is in the internet service business, so will work very hard to enter the internet service market, AOL knew that NSCP needed the internet service business much more than MSFT. So to deal with NSCP, AOL have to use its power of monopoly in the internet business , i.e to ask NSCP not to enter the internet service business within three years, and AOL will have a seat in NSCP's board to make sure that NSCP will not enter the internet service market in three years.
NSCP agreed the first , i.e not to enter the internet service business in three years, but rejected the second. So the deal with NSCP is broken . At the same time, AOL went to MSFT and proposed that if MSFT wanted AOL's contract, MSFT will agree to put AOL's icon into its win95 OS . MSFT agreed, so the deal was cut.
Knowing the fact that NSCP lost the contract and can't maintain its monopoly position in the browser market, and the dream of entering the Internet service market,
NSCP's then CEO was in a very weak mood, and sent a e-mail early in the morning
to MSFT to express that NSCP will never compete with MSFT , and suggest MSFT
to work together with NSCP by investing into NSCP so that both companies will benefit.
Before the meeting, MSFT held the big card of AOL's contract, which will help
MSFT to enter the browser market , so MSFT had no interest to divide the browser's
market with NSCP , but insisted on free competition. So the meeting with NSCP was broken. NSCP's card is to complain to DOJ and had DOJ to help NSCP by filing
a suit against MSFT.
So, talking about criminal of monopoly, of antitrust law, AOL is the biggest one, and NSCP is the second, while MSFT was completely innocent and being set up !!!!
This is my analysis, and worth people to think again !!!!! WHAT THE FACT IS !
|
