I then threaten to shoot you with a pistol unless you give me everything you own.
This is not a free market. The most important aspect of a free market is a government that protect life liberty and property. What you are describing is not capitalism but rule by thugs.
There is a big difference between a fraudulant statement (saying DR-DOS doesn't work when it does) and a simply careless and possibly sleazy statement (saying that DR-DOS is not supported.) Obviously, Microsoft could have gone to the trouble of certifying DR-DOS as working, but since when to companies have an obligation to make sure their competitors' products work properly?
They made a product that was designed to work on MS-DOS. It is therefore a true statement that it was not designed for DR-DOS and therefore might not work on it. Since it is a true statement, it does not constitute fraud, and therefore Microsoft has not broken the law.
If you've read my other posts, you'll notice that I did address this. I read about a third of the FoF. But the reason that I'm not addressing the specific facts cited there is that for the most part the facts involved are correct. Microsoft does have a large market share (a "monopoly" if you will) and they do throw their weight around and they've done sleazy things.
My objection is not to the factual record, but with the premise that that should be illegal. I have no doubt that under som interpretations of antitrust law, MS is guilty, but I object to antitrust law itself. I've explained my reasons in detail elsewhere.
And yes, I am a Libertarian policy wonk, although I don't think that that puts me in a dreamworld.
And no, I'm not a Microsoft fan. I think they make good-to-mediocre products. In fact, I have never purchased a Microsoft product, as I own a Mac. I personally don't think their products are all that great. But that does not change the fact that a lot of people have freely chosen to use that product. I support their right to do so, and Microsoft's right to reap the benefits of that popularity, including engaging in "predatory" behavior.
Sorry, but you are getting screwed. I got a similar job (Perl/CGI scripting, HTML, etc) at the U of Minnesota a year ago, starting at $10/hour. Since then I've had an offer for $13/hour and one for $15/hour. And that's with less than a year of part-time work experience.
I don't know what the job situation at your school is, but here they are desperate for people who know anything about Unix, Perl, web programming, systems administration, etc. I'd guess that you could easily get a lot more than that out of them.
Being a geek sure is nice. I almost feel guilty when my non-geek friends mention their crappy $7/hour jobs. And those jobs are at things like answering telephones that don't give them any useful work experience.
OK, let's say that 80% of the market wants Windows, and 20% would prefer a computer with no OS preinstalled. And let's say there are 10 PC companies on the market. It would seem that one of those companies would tell MS to screw itself, and go after the 20% who prefer alternative OS's.
In fact, a few companies have done that, but it is a very small number. What does that tell you? It tells me that almost all consumers want Windows. Thus the people who are complaining about this are in the small minority.
Keep in mind that the case spans a few years of time, not the CURRENT state of the market.
But by the time this trial is over, the current state of the market will be quite a bit different. Any remedies intended to prevent a MS monopoly in '97 won't do much good in 2002 if Apple and linux each have 20% market share at that time. If this trial is to accomplish anything, it needs to keep in mind future trends, not just past conditions. The very fact that Apple and Linux are doing so well should tell us that Microsoft must not be quite as monopolistic as the DOJ thinks.
Nothing. But that's not what Microsoft is being prosecuted for. Only the most broad definition of "contract" can include the body of US law. It was not the least bit voluntary. Contrary to your assertion, they can *not* go off and start their own country. And all the existing countries have the same problems, so they don't have much of a choice.
One aspect of a contract is that it should be clearly defined and should spell out specifically which actions are and are not allowed. I suggest you look at the history of antitrust law. The definition of what it means changes with every administration, and companies are nailed for things that were not considered crimes when they occured. If you had gone back to before the '95 suit and asked 10 lawyers whether bundling IE with Win95 would violate antitrust law, I'd bet that most of them would tell you "no." Quite simply, it's bad law. It's vague, overreaching, and it changes with the prosecutor and with the judge. It's only result is to give government officials an almost unlimited power to harrass successful companies. Given the number of deals Microsoft makes in a year, it's almost certain that a determined prosecutor could find something that would be considered "monopolistic." I don't think there was anything Microsoft could have done about that short of giving up and going home.
That's my problem with antitrust law: that it is not a good law, nor is it a good "contract."
Actually, I think it is immoral, or at least it should be illegal. That's the whole point of contracts: they ensure that both parties follow through on their agreements. If it can be shown that they are guilty of breach of contract, they should be punished.
Microsoft also embedded a deliberate lie in Win3.1.
Was it a lie? The statement "DR-DOS may not be compatible with Windows" is completely true. Since Microsoft does not have access to the source of DR-DOS, they have no control over it, and so they cannot guaruntee its compatibility. I don't see how that is a lie. Also, I have read that that message existed only in development releases, and that the commercial product did not contain this message.
There are numerous other cases that show that MS is not the innocent party you think it is.
Look, I am not saying that I admire Microsoft. They have done some sleazy things, and certainly they may have broken some legitimate laws (fraud, theft, etc). But if they have done those things, they should be punished for those actions. Suit should be filed specifying which specific contracts have been breached, which technologies have been stolen, or which fraudulent statements have been made.
But the fact that they have done some illegal things does not make everything they do wrong. If they have broken other laws, fine. But that does not justify antitrust law. Microsoft should be prosecuted for specific actions that are illegal, not for vague "monopolistic practices" and "combinations in restraint of trade."
I don't usually favor the actions of lawyers, but at least their actions (good and bad) are normally a matter of public record. I wish we could say that for businessmen.
Not really. The actual trial is publicized, but you can bet that Netscape, Sun, and others met behind closed doors with government officials to plan these attacks. And my point is that if this continues, it will get worse. For example, one of the worst outcomes of this trial would be if MS were declared an "essential utility" and regulated accordingly. Then some of the most important decisions in the future of the computer industry would be decided by government bureoucrats, and they would likely be decided by lobbying and special interest pressures.
Just last month Microsoft was lobbying to have the budget of the Department of Justice decreased because they were unhappy with being investigated by the government. Not exactly apolitical. Perhaps slightly less political than a tobacco company, if that's your standard.
"Just last month, meaning after the antitrust trial. Microsoft has only been involved in Washington in the last couple of years, and this is because they are starting to realize that they cannot maintain their market share simply by improving their products and competing on the merits, as they get accused of being a monopoly. So I see the recent lobbying effort as a defensive move, to protect themselves from further political attack.
Let me get this straight - either Microsoft is allowed to continue leaving a trail of shattered standards and vanished competitors across the tech industry, or else they'll simply buy the government?
Well, no, I'm not saying that by itself this antitrust trial will cause Microsoft to by the government, but it's a first step to a more-politicized industry. I think it's quite likely that BillG is right now hiring lobbyists and publicists to make sure that they don't get screwed over like this again. And as this happens, Microsoft's competitors will all also have to beef up their political operations to protect themselves.
So no, the antitrust trial is not going to cause BillG to buy up the government, but every time something like this happens, the Valley becomes a little more political. And that politicization leads to more money being squandered no lawyers and lobbyists, leading to a lower overall level of innovation.
Anyone who likes paying 5 cents/minute for long distance (vs. the 50 cents+/minute paid in the 70s) should be kissing the butt of the government for helping to arrange the breakup of AT&T. Bet you didn't know at the time of the breakup how cheap a phone call could be...
Except that AT & T was not a free market corporation. They had substantial government support and regulation.
If you want to see a country where capitalism is unfettered by the government, take a look at Russia these days. It's a libertarian paradise, isn't it?
No, Russia today is closer to feudalism than capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by secure property rights, strong punishment of crimes, and minimal government. Russia doesn't meet any of these criteria. They still have a large government, and government agents routinely harrass and demand bribes from businesses. Russia isn't a Capitalist economy in any sense of the word.
And as a by-the-by, why is it that the same people who think that big government is inherently evil think that big business is inherently good?
Because (unless they have help from the government) governments can't throw you in jail. They can't force people to pay for their "services." They can't pass regulations about all aspects of your life. Plus, the government is a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the biggest corporations. A large corporation has anual revenue measured in the tens of billions of dollars. The federal government spends $2 trillion a year.
Actaully, I've never purchased a Microsoft product. I have Macs. I think Microsoft makes bloated, mediocre software. But I can distinguish religion from politics. The fact that I personally dislike Microsoft's products doesn't change the fact that many many people have freely chosen their OS. I don't change my politics because I dislike a given company's politics.
How can you say that Microsoft has a monopoly when Apple has 10% market share and seems to be on the upswing? If they keep doing as well as they have lately, they could easily have 20%-30% marketshare by the time this trial concludes a year from now.
And no I haven't studied all of antitrust law, but I've seen enough example like the Staples/Office Depot one to know that it happens. And my point wasn't so much that this is a way of tricking the judge as that it was a fallacious way of defining markets, albeit one that judges often accept.
This is not a harm to the consumer. It is true that they have done things to their competitors taht are not warm and fuzzy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Pushing around OEM's is not much of a harm to consumers.
I guess my basic problem with all of this is the concept of "monopoly." I don't think that this is really an economically relevant term. Having a large market share certainly gives one an advantage, but so do plenty of other things. The key question is not: do you have a monopoly? Rather it is: did you acquire that monopoly by free exchange or by coersion?
By definition, a company in the free market cannot coerce. All companies in a free market acquire their "economic power" by producing products that consumers want. Although there are certainly forces that tend to keep a market leader in front in the short term, long-run success can only occur if a company meets the needs of its customers.
Frankly, I think that's all there is to it. I think Microsoft has a right to set any terms it wants for the use of Windows because Windows is their property.
Of the bulleted list above, I see only two offenses that are not simply cases of Microsoft setting terms for the use of its property. The first is the Microsoft-Apple deal. Frankly, I don't see why this was a problem. It was just a deal whereby each company would help promote the other's products.
The other item is the Java-Sun fiasco. I think there may be something to this, because this is not an issue of "monopoly power." The reason Sun is suing is that Microsoft broke its contract with Sun. If this in fact occured, I fully support taking action against them for that. But it is a seperate issue from the antitrust case.
The basic "moral" issue here was whether or not Microsoft used their influence to simply strong arm away any other competition and maintain thier monopoly... which is both illegal.. and in the realm of morality, shady at best.
I agree that in may be illegal. But I do not believe it is the least bit immoral. *All* companies try to "strong arm away any other competition." No one said that business was free of conflict. But "strong arming" is a lousy basis on which to write laws.
The *legal* issue might be whether they have a monopoly. But I don't think there is any moral relevance to that concept.
Agreed. Morality must be first translated into laws before they are used to punish crimes. I am not necessarily saying that the judge should ignore the law in making his ruling, although in his position I might resign in protest.
But the fact that the judge has an obligation to uphold the law does not change the fact that if the law is unjust then Microsoft is being unjustly prosecuted. Certainly if this is so the solution is not to ignore the law but to repeal it, and I guess that's my point: antitrust law should be repealed.
But the fact remains that I don't believe Microsoft has done anything that is worthy of punishment, and I hope that they do not get punished.
If they commited these crimes, they should be prosecuted for them seperately. Why are they being lumped in with an antitrust suit?
You squander your moral position by supporting the criminal activities of these criminals.
Perhaps you should explain whose rights Microsoft violated. I will concede that they may have violated antitrust laws, but as I said, I consider that an unjust law. Have they committed any real crimes (such as theft or fraud as you say above?
Because I think that laws should be based on broad moral principles, and in this case I think that antitrust law is immoral. It is quite possible that Microsoft violated the letter of antitrust, but violating an unjust law does not deserve punishment as far as I'm concerned.
I don't so much dispute the facts, but the premises that lead to the conclusions in the FoF. If you accept the premises of the Clinton DOJ, then Microsoft is definitely guilty. But it is those premisesI question. I object to the idea of antitrust law, to the prinicple that large market share subjects you to a different set of rules, and the contention that having a popular product strips you of the right to determine who may use that product. I agree that under some interpretations of antitrust law, Microsoft is guilty, but it is the law and the interpretations that I question.
So putting a defense "based on the facts" does no good if you have a judge that has accepted the DOJ's premises as to what constitutes a violation of antitrust law. Frankly, I'm not sure there was anything that Microsoft could have done in this case, since people seem to have accepted the premises of the Clinton DOJ.
monopoly price of $89 rather than competitive level of $49.
Baloney. This is a very standard price for a large software package for Windows. Is Apple a monopoly too?
refusal to deal with IBM--limiting consumer choices.
Looks to me like IBM is selling Windows computers. Besides, there are lots of other companies that sell Windows-equipped computers. Would it really be that big of a deal if one company didn't have it?
blocking distributiona of netscape as a choice.
Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of minutes.
overriding consumer's choice of other browser and forcinguse of IE
I haven't used Windoze much, but the few times I used it Netscape seemed to work just fine. At no point was I "forced" to use IE.
revoking licenses of OEM's for accomodating the choicesdesired by consumers
As I understand it, this practice has already been curtailed, and it is arguably a net harm to consumers over giving Windows indiscriminately to all comers. But isn't this within Microsoft's rights?
Besides, the only reason that this tactic worked was because almost all customers *do* want Windows. And there are a few computer makers that will sell you other OS's, so what's the problem?
Microsoft lies again and again to judges throughout America but you think it would be immoral for them to settle?
Not necessarily immoral. If settling would reduce the penalties they suffer, I wouldn't hold it against them. But I would rather see them fight it out, because if they settle they implicitly accept the false conclusions of Judge Jackson.
In the libertarian-ayn-rand-dog-eat-dog-jungle, there is no morality.
What are you talking about? Libertarianism is based upon the principle of noninitiation of force. If Microsoft were killing off rivals or engaging in fraud or committing some other real crime, I would be the first to advocate punishment. But my point is precisely that Microsoft has not done anything immoral, and for this reason it is immoral for the government to punish them. Morality has a great deal of relevance here. The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market? How is this anything but a moral issue?
More importantly, he says why Apple is NOT a viable alternative (entire platform-switch scenario).
His argument was apparently that any competitor that would cost significant money to switch to doesn't count. But this is going to be true no matter what the market looks like. Unless someone clones the entire Win32 API perfectly, ecery competitor will have to demonstrate to their customers that the switch is worth it. Setting that as the standard for "monopoly" makes every OS manufacturer a monopolist. It is every bit as difficult to switch from the Mac to an Intel platform.
Why do you think the market is called Wintel by people on the other side of the fence?
If by "monopoly" you mean "large market share on intel computers," then I will agree they have a monopoly. But so what? They gained that "monopoly" fair and square, and I as far as I can see they have committed no crimes in defending that monopoly. You could argue that they have violated antitrust law, but it is so vague that practically every successful company has done this.
I think my points stand. Any individual or company that doesn't like the Windows "monopoly" is free to purchase Macs on its next hardware upgrade, and again, the judge never demonstrated harms to consumers. The best he came up with was that users were "forced" to use IE, and based on pulling out the old chrystal ball and speculating on harms that might happen in the future. I ask again: where is the harm to consumers?
As I've said elsewhere, this is a common antitrust trick: define the market so that all of the competitors are not included, and then obviously the company has a "monopoly." The FoF's excuse for excluding Apple is that there are costs associated with switching to Apple hardware. But so what? There are always costs switching to any new product. The relevant question is whether a consumer wishing to use a non-Microsoft product has that option. The answer is yes.
They pulled the same nonsense when Staples and Office Depot tried to merge. The FTC defined the "relevant market" as "Office supply superstore." In that market, the combined company had about 70% market share. What they conveniently ignored was that every product that each company sold is sold in many other kinds of stores. Office Max may be the only other "office supply superstore," but there are lots of other places that sell pencils and calculators.
The same sort of thing is going on with Microsoft. Judge Jackson starts out by declaring that Mac OS, Solaris, Linux, Be, FreeBSD, etc all don't count as competition, and then he concludes that they are a monopoly. This is not economically meaningful however. Consumers *can* use those other operating systems. They simply have chosen not to.
Slashdot Mirror
I then threaten to shoot you with a pistol unless you give me everything you own.
This is not a free market. The most important aspect of a free market is a government that protect life liberty and property. What you are describing is not capitalism but rule by thugs.
There is a big difference between a fraudulant statement (saying DR-DOS doesn't work when it does) and a simply careless and possibly sleazy statement (saying that DR-DOS is not supported.) Obviously, Microsoft could have gone to the trouble of certifying DR-DOS as working, but since when to companies have an obligation to make sure their competitors' products work properly?
They made a product that was designed to work on MS-DOS. It is therefore a true statement that it was not designed for DR-DOS and therefore might not work on it. Since it is a true statement, it does not constitute fraud, and therefore Microsoft has not broken the law.
If you've read my other posts, you'll notice that I did address this. I read about a third of the FoF. But the reason that I'm not addressing the specific facts cited there is that for the most part the facts involved are correct. Microsoft does have a large market share (a "monopoly" if you will) and they do throw their weight around and they've done sleazy things.
My objection is not to the factual record, but with the premise that that should be illegal. I have no doubt that under som interpretations of antitrust law, MS is guilty, but I object to antitrust law itself. I've explained my reasons in detail elsewhere.
And yes, I am a Libertarian policy wonk, although I don't think that that puts me in a dreamworld.
And no, I'm not a Microsoft fan. I think they make good-to-mediocre products. In fact, I have never purchased a Microsoft product, as I own a Mac. I personally don't think their products are all that great. But that does not change the fact that a lot of people have freely chosen to use that product. I support their right to do so, and Microsoft's right to reap the benefits of that popularity, including engaging in "predatory" behavior.
Sorry, but you are getting screwed. I got a similar job (Perl/CGI scripting, HTML, etc) at the U of Minnesota a year ago, starting at $10/hour. Since then I've had an offer for $13/hour and one for $15/hour. And that's with less than a year of part-time work experience.
I don't know what the job situation at your school is, but here they are desperate for people who know anything about Unix, Perl, web programming, systems administration, etc. I'd guess that you could easily get a lot more than that out of them.
Being a geek sure is nice. I almost feel guilty when my non-geek friends mention their crappy $7/hour jobs. And those jobs are at things like answering telephones that don't give them any useful work experience.
OK, let's say that 80% of the market wants Windows, and 20% would prefer a computer with no OS preinstalled. And let's say there are 10 PC companies on the market. It would seem that one of those companies would tell MS to screw itself, and go after the 20% who prefer alternative OS's.
In fact, a few companies have done that, but it is a very small number. What does that tell you? It tells me that almost all consumers want Windows. Thus the people who are complaining about this are in the small minority.
Keep in mind that the case spans a few years of time, not the CURRENT state of the market.
But by the time this trial is over, the current state of the market will be quite a bit different. Any remedies intended to prevent a MS monopoly in '97 won't do much good in 2002 if Apple and linux each have 20% market share at that time. If this trial is to accomplish anything, it needs to keep in mind future trends, not just past conditions. The very fact that Apple and Linux are doing so well should tell us that Microsoft must not be quite as monopolistic as the DOJ thinks.
What is moral about breaking a contract?
Nothing. But that's not what Microsoft is being prosecuted for. Only the most broad definition of "contract" can include the body of US law. It was not the least bit voluntary. Contrary to your assertion, they can *not* go off and start their own country. And all the existing countries have the same problems, so they don't have much of a choice.
One aspect of a contract is that it should be clearly defined and should spell out specifically which actions are and are not allowed. I suggest you look at the history of antitrust law. The definition of what it means changes with every administration, and companies are nailed for things that were not considered crimes when they occured. If you had gone back to before the '95 suit and asked 10 lawyers whether bundling IE with Win95 would violate antitrust law, I'd bet that most of them would tell you "no." Quite simply, it's bad law. It's vague, overreaching, and it changes with the prosecutor and with the judge. It's only result is to give government officials an almost unlimited power to harrass successful companies. Given the number of deals Microsoft makes in a year, it's almost certain that a determined prosecutor could find something that would be considered "monopolistic." I don't think there was anything Microsoft could have done about that short of giving up and going home.
That's my problem with antitrust law: that it is not a good law, nor is it a good "contract."
Breaking a contract by itself is not immoral.
Actually, I think it is immoral, or at least it should be illegal. That's the whole point of contracts: they ensure that both parties follow through on their agreements. If it can be shown that they are guilty of breach of contract, they should be punished.
Microsoft also embedded a deliberate lie in Win3.1.
Was it a lie? The statement "DR-DOS may not be compatible with Windows" is completely true. Since Microsoft does not have access to the source of DR-DOS, they have no control over it, and so they cannot guaruntee its compatibility. I don't see how that is a lie. Also, I have read that that message existed only in development releases, and that the commercial product did not contain this message.
There are numerous other cases that show that MS is not the innocent party you think it is.
Look, I am not saying that I admire Microsoft. They have done some sleazy things, and certainly they may have broken some legitimate laws (fraud, theft, etc). But if they have done those things, they should be punished for those actions. Suit should be filed specifying which specific contracts have been breached, which technologies have been stolen, or which fraudulent statements have been made.
But the fact that they have done some illegal things does not make everything they do wrong. If they have broken other laws, fine. But that does not justify antitrust law. Microsoft should be prosecuted for specific actions that are illegal, not for vague "monopolistic practices" and "combinations in restraint of trade."
I don't usually favor the actions of lawyers, but at least their actions (good and bad) are normally a matter of public record. I wish we could say that for businessmen.
Not really. The actual trial is publicized, but you can bet that Netscape, Sun, and others met behind closed doors with government officials to plan these attacks. And my point is that if this continues, it will get worse. For example, one of the worst outcomes of this trial would be if MS were declared an "essential utility" and regulated accordingly. Then some of the most important decisions in the future of the computer industry would be decided by government bureoucrats, and they would likely be decided by lobbying and special interest pressures.
Just last month Microsoft was lobbying to have the budget of the Department of Justice decreased because they were unhappy with being investigated by the government. Not exactly apolitical. Perhaps slightly less political than a tobacco company, if that's your standard.
"Just last month, meaning after the antitrust trial. Microsoft has only been involved in Washington in the last couple of years, and this is because they are starting to realize that they cannot maintain their market share simply by improving their products and competing on the merits, as they get accused of being a monopoly. So I see the recent lobbying effort as a defensive move, to protect themselves from further political attack.
Let me get this straight - either Microsoft is allowed to continue leaving a trail of shattered standards and vanished competitors across the tech industry, or else they'll simply buy the government?
Well, no, I'm not saying that by itself this antitrust trial will cause Microsoft to by the government, but it's a first step to a more-politicized industry. I think it's quite likely that BillG is right now hiring lobbyists and publicists to make sure that they don't get screwed over like this again. And as this happens, Microsoft's competitors will all also have to beef up their political operations to protect themselves.
So no, the antitrust trial is not going to cause BillG to buy up the government, but every time something like this happens, the Valley becomes a little more political. And that politicization leads to more money being squandered no lawyers and lobbyists, leading to a lower overall level of innovation.
Anyone who likes paying 5 cents/minute for long distance (vs. the 50 cents+/minute paid in the 70s) should be kissing the butt of the government for helping to arrange the breakup of AT&T. Bet you didn't know at the time of the breakup how cheap a phone call could be...
Except that AT & T was not a free market corporation. They had substantial government support and regulation.
If you want to see a country where capitalism is unfettered by the government, take a look at Russia these days. It's a libertarian paradise, isn't it?
No, Russia today is closer to feudalism than capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by secure property rights, strong punishment of crimes, and minimal government. Russia doesn't meet any of these criteria. They still have a large government, and government agents routinely harrass and demand bribes from businesses. Russia isn't a Capitalist economy in any sense of the word.
And as a by-the-by, why is it that the same people who think that big government is inherently evil think that big business is inherently good?
Because (unless they have help from the government) governments can't throw you in jail. They can't force people to pay for their "services." They can't pass regulations about all aspects of your life. Plus, the government is a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the biggest corporations. A large corporation has anual revenue measured in the tens of billions of dollars. The federal government spends $2 trillion a year.
Actaully, I've never purchased a Microsoft product. I have Macs. I think Microsoft makes bloated, mediocre software. But I can distinguish religion from politics. The fact that I personally dislike Microsoft's products doesn't change the fact that many many people have freely chosen their OS. I don't change my politics because I dislike a given company's politics.
How can you say that Microsoft has a monopoly when Apple has 10% market share and seems to be on the upswing? If they keep doing as well as they have lately, they could easily have 20%-30% marketshare by the time this trial concludes a year from now.
And no I haven't studied all of antitrust law, but I've seen enough example like the Staples/Office Depot one to know that it happens. And my point wasn't so much that this is a way of tricking the judge as that it was a fallacious way of defining markets, albeit one that judges often accept.
Read on the OEM bullying, EVERYTHING.
This is not a harm to the consumer. It is true that they have done things to their competitors taht are not warm and fuzzy, but there's nothing wrong with that. Pushing around OEM's is not much of a harm to consumers.
Thanks for summarizing the FOF.
I guess my basic problem with all of this is the concept of "monopoly." I don't think that this is really an economically relevant term. Having a large market share certainly gives one an advantage, but so do plenty of other things. The key question is not: do you have a monopoly? Rather it is: did you acquire that monopoly by free exchange or by coersion?
By definition, a company in the free market cannot coerce. All companies in a free market acquire their "economic power" by producing products that consumers want. Although there are certainly forces that tend to keep a market leader in front in the short term, long-run success can only occur if a company meets the needs of its customers.
Frankly, I think that's all there is to it. I think Microsoft has a right to set any terms it wants for the use of Windows because Windows is their property.
Of the bulleted list above, I see only two offenses that are not simply cases of Microsoft setting terms for the use of its property. The first is the Microsoft-Apple deal. Frankly, I don't see why this was a problem. It was just a deal whereby each company would help promote the other's products.
The other item is the Java-Sun fiasco. I think there may be something to this, because this is not an issue of "monopoly power." The reason Sun is suing is that Microsoft broke its contract with Sun. If this in fact occured, I fully support taking action against them for that. But it is a seperate issue from the antitrust case.
The basic "moral" issue here was whether or not Microsoft used their influence to simply strong arm away any other competition and maintain thier monopoly... which is both illegal.. and in the realm of morality, shady at best.
I agree that in may be illegal. But I do not believe it is the least bit immoral. *All* companies try to "strong arm away any other competition." No one said that business was free of conflict. But "strong arming" is a lousy basis on which to write laws.
The *legal* issue might be whether they have a monopoly. But I don't think there is any moral relevance to that concept.
Agreed. Morality must be first translated into laws before they are used to punish crimes. I am not necessarily saying that the judge should ignore the law in making his ruling, although in his position I might resign in protest.
But the fact that the judge has an obligation to uphold the law does not change the fact that if the law is unjust then Microsoft is being unjustly prosecuted. Certainly if this is so the solution is not to ignore the law but to repeal it, and I guess that's my point: antitrust law should be repealed.
But the fact remains that I don't believe Microsoft has done anything that is worthy of punishment, and I hope that they do not get punished.
They stole, lied and defrauded.
If they commited these crimes, they should be prosecuted for them seperately. Why are they being lumped in with an antitrust suit?
You squander your moral position by supporting the criminal activities of these criminals.
Perhaps you should explain whose rights Microsoft violated. I will concede that they may have violated antitrust laws, but as I said, I consider that an unjust law. Have they committed any real crimes (such as theft or fraud as you say above?
Because I think that laws should be based on broad moral principles, and in this case I think that antitrust law is immoral. It is quite possible that Microsoft violated the letter of antitrust, but violating an unjust law does not deserve punishment as far as I'm concerned.
I don't so much dispute the facts, but the premises that lead to the conclusions in the FoF. If you accept the premises of the Clinton DOJ, then Microsoft is definitely guilty. But it is those premisesI question. I object to the idea of antitrust law, to the prinicple that large market share subjects you to a different set of rules, and the contention that having a popular product strips you of the right to determine who may use that product. I agree that under some interpretations of antitrust law, Microsoft is guilty, but it is the law and the interpretations that I question.
So putting a defense "based on the facts" does no good if you have a judge that has accepted the DOJ's premises as to what constitutes a violation of antitrust law. Frankly, I'm not sure there was anything that Microsoft could have done in this case, since people seem to have accepted the premises of the Clinton DOJ.
0 shares.
monopoly price of $89 rather than competitive level of $49.
Baloney. This is a very standard price for a large software package for Windows. Is Apple a monopoly too?
refusal to deal with IBM--limiting consumer choices.
Looks to me like IBM is selling Windows computers. Besides, there are lots of other companies that sell Windows-equipped computers. Would it really be that big of a deal if one company didn't have it?
blocking distributiona of netscape as a choice.
Consumers can download Netscape in a matter of minutes.
overriding consumer's choice of other browser and forcinguse of IE
I haven't used Windoze much, but the few times I used it Netscape seemed to work just fine. At no point was I "forced" to use IE.
revoking licenses of OEM's for accomodating the choicesdesired by consumers
As I understand it, this practice has already been curtailed, and it is arguably a net harm to consumers over giving Windows indiscriminately to all comers. But isn't this within Microsoft's rights?
Besides, the only reason that this tactic worked was because almost all customers *do* want Windows. And there are a few computer makers that will sell you other OS's, so what's the problem?
Microsoft lies again and again to judges throughout America but you think it would be immoral for them to settle?
Not necessarily immoral. If settling would reduce the penalties they suffer, I wouldn't hold it against them. But I would rather see them fight it out, because if they settle they implicitly accept the false conclusions of Judge Jackson.
In the libertarian-ayn-rand-dog-eat-dog-jungle, there is no morality.
What are you talking about? Libertarianism is based upon the principle of noninitiation of force. If Microsoft were killing off rivals or engaging in fraud or committing some other real crime, I would be the first to advocate punishment. But my point is precisely that Microsoft has not done anything immoral, and for this reason it is immoral for the government to punish them. Morality has a great deal of relevance here. The moral issue is: is it right to punish Microsoft for using its well-earned influence in one market to promote its product in another market? How is this anything but a moral issue?
More importantly, he says why Apple is NOT a viable alternative (entire platform-switch scenario).
His argument was apparently that any competitor that would cost significant money to switch to doesn't count. But this is going to be true no matter what the market looks like. Unless someone clones the entire Win32 API perfectly, ecery competitor will have to demonstrate to their customers that the switch is worth it. Setting that as the standard for "monopoly" makes every OS manufacturer a monopolist. It is every bit as difficult to switch from the Mac to an Intel platform.
Why do you think the market is called Wintel by people on the other side of the fence?
If by "monopoly" you mean "large market share on intel computers," then I will agree they have a monopoly. But so what? They gained that "monopoly" fair and square, and I as far as I can see they have committed no crimes in defending that monopoly. You could argue that they have violated antitrust law, but it is so vague that practically every successful company has done this.
I think my points stand. Any individual or company that doesn't like the Windows "monopoly" is free to purchase Macs on its next hardware upgrade, and again, the judge never demonstrated harms to consumers. The best he came up with was that users were "forced" to use IE, and based on pulling out the old chrystal ball and speculating on harms that might happen in the future. I ask again: where is the harm to consumers?
As I've said elsewhere, this is a common antitrust trick: define the market so that all of the competitors are not included, and then obviously the company has a "monopoly." The FoF's excuse for excluding Apple is that there are costs associated with switching to Apple hardware. But so what? There are always costs switching to any new product. The relevant question is whether a consumer wishing to use a non-Microsoft product has that option. The answer is yes.
They pulled the same nonsense when Staples and Office Depot tried to merge. The FTC defined the "relevant market" as "Office supply superstore." In that market, the combined company had about 70% market share. What they conveniently ignored was that every product that each company sold is sold in many other kinds of stores. Office Max may be the only other "office supply superstore," but there are lots of other places that sell pencils and calculators.
The same sort of thing is going on with Microsoft. Judge Jackson starts out by declaring that Mac OS, Solaris, Linux, Be, FreeBSD, etc all don't count as competition, and then he concludes that they are a monopoly. This is not economically meaningful however. Consumers *can* use those other operating systems. They simply have chosen not to.