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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21527)	11/18/1998 12:22:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Just to add a little more on deadweight loss: The government says that the big corporations prefer IE and Windows as separate products. Presumably they could separate them, but let's assume they can't. The government seems to be saying that's a loss to consumers. Microsoft will say, I'll bet, that other users prefer the two products joined, for ease of use, lack of need to buy a separate browser and the like. That presumably is a gain to consumers. Now, I am not certain these losses the government describes are the deadweight loss Bork is talking about. It may be that the government is simply offering this evidence, again, to show predatory intent, since, in the absence of such intent, Microsoft, presumably, would offer its customers who wanted it a choice. But assuming they are, how do you weigh the one against the other to come up with the net, aggregate gain or loss? And, is this weighing of loss against gain, or even the effort to identify predatory intent in a tying case, an exercise that is helpful or beneficial to the economy? Is it theoretically sound, or even possible to do it? Does having this done on an ongoing basis by the judiciary, a branch of government almost singularly unqualified to do it, not deter competitive conduct that enhances consumer welfare? That, to me, is probably Microsoft's strongest defense. It would get them out of the fact-oriented defense they are now mired in, and it would shift the focus of the debate from a discussion of how bad Bill Gates looks in a deposition and how strong the government's case is against them to a discussion of the economy in general and the positive conduct that slapping down Microsoft's predatory behavior will deter. It would focus on the difficulty of identifying behavior which is "predatory," an exercise that is surprisingly difficult, even in this clear-cut case. I mean, if the government cannot show beyond doubt that Microsoft's conduct is predatory in this clear-cut case, then what does that say about all the other, presumably weaker predatory tying cases the government will want to bring in the future? But, at least at this point, the government has nothing to worry about on this issue, as they seem determined not to make this argument. At least at this point, it appears they'd rather muck around in the factual swampland and try to persuade Judge Jackson that they're, as one them put it, "on the side of the angels." -- which is great for the government, because it means they are going to win.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21527)	11/18/1998 12:25:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

How do you disprove a negative? Maybe try this: Since Intel had to drop NSP, we don't have the great audio and video that we would have. That's a loss, though somewhat abstract. Less abstract is the retraining costs companies have to bear while being forced to switch from Netscape Navigator to Internet Explorer due to its integration into Windows 98. Finally, shouldn't the elimination of competition be automatically presumed to incur a loss of some sort? It doesn't take an advanced economic degree (does Robert Bork have one? What's he doing economics for, anyway?) to believe that competition reduces prices and increases quality.