Re: No Judicial 'Pie-In-Face' for Bill?

[charles mueller <cmueller@metrolink.net>]

        I think Netscape's apparent decision to fold has everything to do
with the appeals court, especially the one in Washington but including the
others as well.  The firm is a victim of not just Microsoft's tying but also
of its predatory pricing (zero, free), both of which are draining its
financial lifeblood, and has no chance of getting relief from these
anticompetitive practices in the U.S. courts--whether through the efforts of
Justice or in a suit of its own.  With an honest judiciary--one that honored
the constitutional right to a jury trial for antitrust victims like this
Microsoft competitor--Netscape would be able to take care of itself, with or
without any help from the Justice Department.

        Charles Mueller, Editor
        ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
        http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller

                                                ----------------------

At 07:26 PM 2/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>charles mueller wrote:
>> 
>>         The morning papers report that (1) Microsoft has moved its internal
>> browser people into the same in-house cubicle with its Windows
>> operating-system crew and (2) Netscape is trying to sell out to IBM, Sun,
>> Oracle, or the like.  New York Times, 2/6/98, C3, and Miami Herald, 2/6/98,
>> C1.
>> 
>>         The first presumably reflects Microsoft's confidence that it's going
>> to get a clean bill of health from the U.S. appeals court in Washington in
>> April, one that will legalize its 'tying' ('integration') of its
>> browser--and all other applications--to its OS. This 2d news
>> item--Netscape's preparations to throw in the towel--suggests that it agrees
>> with that Microsoft conclusion, i.e., that the appellate court is going to
>> give Bill Gates everything he wants, a judicial blessing of his software
>> monopoly across the board.
>
>
>    I don't think Netscape's decision has much to do with the appellate
>court.  I think it has more to do with the fact that the current case is
>only one of a dozen or more ways that MS is seeking to eliminate NN, and
>it doesn't see DOJ addressing the other 11.   
>
>    Jamie
>
>
>-- 
>James Love
>Consumer Project on Technology
>P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
>love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
>voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176
>