Doing the Math in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Cases

coupland writes "Bob Cringely has posted this week's column and has made some interesting comments. He says that regardless of what happens in the EU, DOJ, and class-action proceedings, Microsoft can't lose. Why? Because they make more money by paying lip-service to the law and accepting the occasional fine than by complying. He even does some simple math to prove his point. Fascinating stuff."

Comments

Total BS

[Neil Blender]

There is nothing to stop the EU from retrying them and upping the fine if they keep it up. That's like saying you should get life for your first parking ticket.

Interesting, but his economics are wrong.

[airrage]

I like Bob, but invariably he always argues the economics from the business side. What about what you and I paid for this legal battle? What is the average cost of an anti-trust proceeding?

What they needed in this, and many other anti-trust cases, is to think outside the box: why not use the RICO statutes? What not have the Federal Trade Commission declare Microsoft OS defective and pull it from shelves? Why not go after Bill and Steve like they did with Enron's Skilling and Lay?

I think Bob is a good at prognosticating, but seriously, every time he starts talking BUSINESS he simply misses the point.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Archangel Michael]

Excuse me, but your bias is showing.

If I recall correctly MOST of Microsoft's Revenue came during the Clinton Administration. In fact, the monopoly status of Microsoft can be directly attributed to the time the company "modernized" windows. Windows 3.11 was fairly stable at the time and WordPerfect and Lotus both were finally running under it well enough.

Then Win95 came out and BROKE all the third party applications AND only Word and Excel ran stable enough to be useful.

I blame M$ on Clinton and Janet Reno.

(not really, just showing you how bias works)