Over here (in NZ) it's illeagal to continually sell products at a loss - ie. promotional sales are ok, but not consistant losses. This is obviously a law protecting businesses from MS-style anti-competitive behaviour. Is there nothing like that in the states?
Also, someone out there might be able to help me out here, but what does MS actually gain from making losses on all but 2 of their products? I mean I can understand how forcing the competition out of business so you have a monopoly would be great for profits, but how did their anti-competitive strategy with Netscape (for example) help their revenue? Wouldn't MS do better by dropping all their products that aren't going to make a profit in the long run?
Slashdot Mirror
Over here (in NZ) it's illeagal to continually sell products at a loss - ie. promotional sales are ok, but not consistant losses. This is obviously a law protecting businesses from MS-style anti-competitive behaviour. Is there nothing like that in the states?
Also, someone out there might be able to help me out here, but what does MS actually gain from making losses on all but 2 of their products? I mean I can understand how forcing the competition out of business so you have a monopoly would be great for profits, but how did their anti-competitive strategy with Netscape (for example) help their revenue? Wouldn't MS do better by dropping all their products that aren't going to make a profit in the long run?