Re: Conservatives calling for DOJ action

[Steve Salop and Judy Gelman <salop@erols.com>]

Bork did recognize the importance of non-price predation and raising
rivals costs in the Antitrust Paradox, albeit not by name.  For example,
see the various parts quoted in Aspen Ski referring to cost-raising
strategies, as well as his discussion of Lorain Journal.   

Incidentally, this is not the first exclusion case in which Bork has
taken the plaintiff's side.  He also worked with Dean Witter in its cert
petition in its case against Visa (SCLC v Visa).  Dean Witter's theory
involved a raising rivals costs approach in a horizontal context.


rlande@UBmail.ubalt.edu wrote:
> 
> Perhaps this just shows that Microsoft's conduct is so outrageous
> that even Bork recognizes that they went over the line.
> 
> I recall that Bork never said that anticompetitive conduct by a
> monopolist was impossible - just that it was extremely rare.
> 
> Here - unlike in so many cases - there is a well defined market and
> a firm with true, long term monopoly power.  These facts alone make
> the Microsoft case different from the vast majority of cases.  And
> add to that the absence of any credible efficiency rational for
> Microsoft's practices.
> 
> Bork does not need the money.  I have read that he still speaks at $50,000
> a speech.  Rather, I believe that he looked at the facts with an open mind
> - in fact, probably with a mind predisposed to believe Microsoft.
> But then he found that he had to go where the facts should lead anyone
> with an open mind.
> 
> Bob Lande
> 
>  On Wed,
> 22 Apr 1998, James Love wrote:
> 
> > I was astonished when I heard, after the Cato debate, that Bork had been
> > hired by Netscape.  I couldn't imagine a more unlikey pairing.  Anyone
> > who looks at Antitrust usually reads Bork's "Antitrust Paradox," which
> > is almost a bible for the University of Chicago School.  It was as if
> > heard that Ralph was going to do Ads for Chevy or something.  This must
> > be very confusing for Bork's followers.
> >
> > I do not think that Bork will necessarily have to reverse himself
> > technically, since most people (not Cato's Levy, who said at the debate
> > he was not aware of a single case where a private monopoly had abused
> > its market position, ever) leave themselves some room, based upon facts
> > of a particular case.  Just like we don't oppose every merger (far from
> > it), Bork, apparently, doesn't think the antitrust laws should be
> > repealed or unenforced.
> >
> > Still, Bork should have the right to change his mind.  I don't think
> > really bright intellectuals spend their entire careers without at least
> > a couple changes.  Quite a few right wing conservatives were once on the
> > left, James Glassman was introduced as a former liberal at the Cato
> > event, as if this led extra credibility to his current views.  Moving
> > from the left to the right is common, predictable and usually considered
> > evidence of maturity and wisdom, by some, so I don't think consistency
> > by itself is that highly honored, in practice.
> >
> > Of course, I don't blame people who wonder if Bork just has a price,
> > which Netscape found.
> >
> >   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
> >