Re: Reiser v. Microsoft

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

Microsoft has every right to establish a brand name.  The Supreme Court
was right in its decision in IBM vs. the United States (1936) 298 US 131
when it said that IBM was entitled to use brand name as an advantage
over third party suppliers of cards for its machines.  But let us note
that if I establish a brand name in file systems, and form alliances
with other respected component vendors, and we establish a joint brand,
and then grow from there, we could in time completely dethrone MS, like
Compaq did in IBM.  That is why MS won't let little guys get started.
We are like crab grass.

Any legal strategy which lacks intellectual honesty as to the deep
issues in our industry is more helpful to MS than one that acknowledges
the issues.

charles mueller wrote:

> Hans--
>         I thought you might like to see this.
>                 Charles
>
> >Return-Path: <owner-pol-econ@SHSU.edu>
> >X-ListName: Political Economy Discussion List <Pol-Econ@SHSU.edu>
> >Warnings-To: <>
> >Errors-To: owner-pol-econ@SHSU.edu
> >Sender: owner-pol-econ@SHSU.edu
> >Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:57:21 -0400
> >To: charles mueller <cmueller@metrolink.net>
> >From: "Roger A. McCain" <mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
> >Reply-To: "Roger A. McCain" <mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Problems of Reiser v. Microsoft
> >CC: Pol-Econ@SHSU.edu
> >
> >Charles Mueller wrote:
> >
> >>Hans Reiser his filed his own antitrust case against Microsoft.
> >
> >And Reiser's complaint is
> >
> >> I have been damaged by inability to effectively
> >>enter the market for file systems for the Windows family of
> operating
> >>systems >as a result of
> >>Microsoft's lack of due diligence in arranging that the components
> of its
> >>>software systems are
> >>separately available to competition from component vendors.
> >
> >Charles, Reiser has made Microsoft's case against Justice for them.
> That
> >is, he raises the issue I raised once before: if the browser has to
> be
> >separate from the operating system, why shouldn't each component of
> the
> >operating system be treated (be legally required to be treated) as a
> >separate commodity? Antitrust as an approach to public policy
> presupposes
> >that commodities are distinct identifiable items, distinguishable as
> >potatos are distinguishable from tomatos. One can then define a
> market for
> >a commodity and count up the number of competitors, and say
> unambiguously
> >if buying one commodity is "tied" to buying another. But computer
> software
> >consists of lists of lines of code. Why draw the boundaries between
> >commodities at one place rather than another in the list of lines of
> code?
> >Conversely, suppose the law should, as Reiser suggests, require that
> each
> >"component" of an OS be separately available for use with
> complementary
> >code produced by competitors. What would happen? The application
> software I
> >buy to keep track of my postcard collection would require one set of
> >"components," and the one I buy to scan and print the pictures would
> >require another suite of "components," and one wouldn't work with a
> system
> >that would support the other, and I would be out more money for less
> >functionality. I think that would work in Microsoft's favor, when all
> is
> >said and done -- since the only compatibility standard would be the
> brand
> >name, and Microsoft has the brand name. Indeed, that's their strategy
> in a
> >nutshell, and it would work even more splendidly in the legal world
> Reiser
> >envisions.
> >
> >
> >Roger A. McCain                 voice (215) 895 2176
> >Professor, Economics            fax (215) 895 6975
> >507D Matheson Hall              mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
> >Drexel University               http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/
> >Philadelphia, PA 19104          origin code 507
> >
> >
> >