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: Bearded One who wrote (21529)	11/18/1998 12:40:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

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. OK, now quantify it and measure it against the "gains" Microsoft is going to offer. I bet you can't. Finally, shouldn't the elimination of competition be automatically presumed to incur a loss of some sort? Ordinarily, yes. However, in the case of a natural monopoly, which is what the government's "network effects" case is proving Microsoft to be, such is not the case. Also, you need to distinguish between elimination of "competition" which is what results in a reduction in consumer welfare and mere elimination of "competitors," which may or may not, and is what this case, at least so far, seems to be about. It doesn't take an advanced economic degree (does Robert Bork have one? What's he doing economics for, anyway?) The strongest arguments in economics are the ones understood by those of us (me included) who do not have economics degrees. As for Bork, he studied under Aaron Director, who headed up Chicago's law and economics program in the '50's. While we're on the subject of economics degrees and those who hold them, it has been some time since we've had any debate over W. Brian Arthur and his ilk. I would like to rekindle the old flame a little by suggesting that the whole exercise that Arthur would have the government undertake in this case, to try to manipulate the software economy from being dominated by a "bad" monopoly to being open to domination by some newer, "good" monopoly that he contends would result in higher consumer welfare, is presumptuous, would be impossible to do, and would cause serious long-term damage to the economy. Anyone wanna take the bait?