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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MaryinRed who wrote (47116)	2/15/1999 12:10:00 AM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

What you're describing is a failed strategy; Pepsi had to spin off its restaurants, because owning 'em made them a competitor to their target market. Coke more logically has monopolized distribution. And, indeed, Pepsi has been complaining about Coke's strategy. It isn't being litigated yet, but it might be. Tell me -- do you like monopolies? mb

To: MaryinRed who wrote (47116)	2/15/1999 11:39:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

mary, your argument would be sound IF... pepsi effectively owned all the cups that beverages were served in and coke had no real way to compete in the soda cup business and pepsi was leveraging their ownership of the soda cup market to sell their sodas. eg, buy only pepsi or you don't get any cups to serve any sodas at all. it doesn't and THAT is the big difference between msft's situation and the one you bring up. a very BIG difference. pepsi wins by competition in the market place. msft wins by leveraging an os monopoly and forcing (not competing) boxmakers to put their product on the desktop. is this not obvious?