Bork's piece

[Bryce Jones <brycej@truman.edu>]

This may have been covered earlier (I recently joined the list) but
Bork, in his litany of Microsoft's predatory conduct, does not
mention its bundling (tying) of IE to its operating system.  Presumably
he is still opposed to going after tying agreements because of his
"one monopoly" argument.  

But even in his book The Antitrust Paradox he admits that efficiency
effects are indeterminate when the two products can be used in variable
proportions.  While it would seem that the operating system and browser
are used in a one to one ratio, that is missing the whole point.  The
recoupment is not in the browser so much as it is in having your finger
in the pie of every Internet transaction.  That is where the money is!
It may often be a mistake to only consider the two product markets when
looking at tying contracts.  There is much more at stake here.

I also am upset when only efficiency arguments are used.  Those who
passed the Sherman Act were also vitally concerned with whether 
businesses would be unfairly driven from the market by monopolists.
If antitrust is to protect competition, it needs to also protect
the legitimate interests of competitors (turning Pueblo Bowl-o-mat on
its head).