Re: Antrust and lock-in

["Etchison, Michael" <etchison@puc.texas.gov>]

	Jamie Love, not unreasonably responding to my hyperbole, points out that 
reducing Bill Gates's wealth is only a by-product of antitrust policies.  
I may secretly suspect that some monopoly-busters are powerfully 
motivated by something resembling envy, but I agree that few if any make 
it part of their public stance.  Anyway, while we're talking about 
personal computers, it is instructive to remember that comparing the open 
architecture decision of IBM (okay, PS2 was proprietary, but...), in 
contrast to the strict closed architecture policy of Apple (the late 
Power Computing authorized clone-maker -- having nearly opened a new 
plant about 30 miles north of where I'm sitting -- a brief exception) 
suggests that the open-platform approach Jamie recommends has a lot going 
for it.  Instructive, but I'm not sure what the lesson is.  
	It's hard to see that the open-architecture policy benefitted IBM much 
in the long run (compared to Apple, and allowing for the many other 
differences between the two firms), but it benefitted customers a lot 
(_pace_ those Mac addicts who think that having an open architecture 
removed incentives for particular makers to make magnificent 
architectures based on but not cloning the PC architecture).  If MS, say, 
remained the monopoly developer and vendor of Windows, but was subject to 
even stricter requirements to let application developers in on the OS's 
inmost secrets -- not, apparently, Bill's present policy <g> -- then a) 
Windows and its progeny might continue to produce 
customer-welfare-enhancing network effects and b) MS might continue to 
support and develop Windows.  If forcing the secrets out discouraged MS 
from maintaining or improving Windows, then present and future customer 
welfare would be significantly reduced.  On such prudential matters, 
fraught with ordinary and Shackleian uncertainty, reasonable folks could 
differ.
Michael E. Etchison
etchison@puc.texas.gov
[opinions mine, not the PUCT's]