RE: Microsoft vs Justice Department

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

  On Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:55:59 -0500 (EST), Tibor Machan wrote:
  
  >I certainly wouldn't presume to put shackles on the people who do produce
  >what I want from them, even if they were all alone doing so.  SO long as
  >Microsoft or Sears does not prevent -- or hire the government to prevent
  >-- others from entering the market, raising capital to fund a competing
  >firm, etc., I would regard it as the company's (people's) right to offer
  >their products for sale at their own terms instead of calling in cops to
  >impose mine.  Microsoft is no de jure monopolist, even if in some areas it
  >may have the stage to itself -- like the Beatles did or Fred Astair or
  >Ralph Nader (as a supposed consumer advocate).  A natural monopolist of
  >this kind -- which means they have risen to the top, like a marathon
  >runner has kept the lead and won the race -- is no threat to freedom or to
  >productivity.  Anyone on this list is (largely) at liberty to compete with
  >Microsoft or Sears (Sears nearly went under from competition a few years
  >ago).
  
       Okay, so it doesn't matter what underhanded practices got you the
  monopoly???  We all shouldn't care that if we want to buy a PC we're
  forced to pay for a copy of an M$ OS whether we want it or not??  There's
  nothing wrong with M$ telling independent hardware vendors that if they
  sell anything else but M$ products they will no longer allow them to
  bundle M$ products???  Did the Beatles tell all the record stores that if
  they wanted to sell Beatles records they could no longer sell you a
  Rolling Stones record??? (your analogy)
  
       Your arguments are based on the completely *WRONG* assumption that
  M$ is a "natural monopoly".  Are you so naive as to believe that M$ has
  done nothing but develop great technology???  I'm not trying to be nasty
  but that's completely laughable, the only thing M$ hasn't done to garnish
  their current marketshare is produce a better product.
  
       I don't get it, you claim that the market should drive the industry
  yet you don't see anything wrong with a company that will use its'
  marketshare (not a better product) to keep any competition out of the
  market.  M$ doesn't want its' products to compete on their own merits,
  they'll do anything they can to see to it that consumers will never get a
  chance to choose another product.  You say you want an open market yet
  you don't see anyting wrong with a company using their power in the
  industry to keep all competition out.  IMO a "free market" is one that's
  open to competition, but that's *NOT* what we have in this industry
  today.  You're either for a "free market" *OR* you see nothing wrong with
  what we have now, not both because what M$ has been allowed to create for
  themselves promotes anything but a free and open market.
  
   ...Cheers,
  
   ...Norm
  
  ***********************************************
  * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
  * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
  * with "send pub_key" in the subject          *
  ***********************************************