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 (21683)	11/23/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>> ME: You can definitely lower prices, and benefit the average consumer for a time, while absolutely wiping out all competition. <<< <<<YOU: That's right, and that's what Microsoft has been able to do >>> So now we are a little further ahead. You agree that it is possible for all competition to be eliminated even while there is a temporary benefit to the consumer. You then take a stunning logical leap: <<<as a result of network effects and "lock in" as described in the government's complaint. It's called a natural monopoly. >>> A natural monopoly. 1. It quite likely doesn't matter for the outcomes to society whether a monopoly was natural or not. Prove that statement wrong, in detail please, if you are going to keep leaning on this lame 'natural monopoly' theory. 2. Network effect and lock in? Give me a break. If one thing is clear from the trial(s) and the discussion here, it is that great efforts to manipulate or damage consumers, manufacturers, the public standards process, the law, and other software companies were undertaken to create a lock in and network effect that would otherwise be far less compelling given the indifferent quality of the engineering effort involved. 3. Granting that network effects are real, what do you need to do to maintain competition when network effects have taken hold? You will need to disrupt that network, is what. Obviously. That there was a network effect, that in addition to illegal actions a company might have had a natural monopoly as an advantage, that someone was first into an arena (not true here of course), all can be and likely are irrelevant in any field in which further technical, or infrastructure, or consumer choice, or military second sources, or pricing progress is desired. The entire defense argument of who else does it, natural monopolies, etc etc is a house of cards. Partly because MSFT in fact did not play by the rules (not even close), and mostly because we need to interest ourselves in taking actions that will have beneficial outcomes for employees, communities, taxpayers, the national defense, consumers, and so forth. >>>I will leave the case that this is ultimately bad for the consumer for another time. No. I want to hear it now. >>> As soon as I am finished demolishing your premises concerning valid matters for the trust-busters to interest themselves in. (Just a joke, Gerry. Don't get all 'emotional' on me :-) Cheers, Chaz