[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

What Would It Take to Win?

          I've read the full collection of posts to this list, thanks to its
  Archive.  The impressive part is the technical knowledge and skills
  displayed in them.  And the meticulous relating of the "unfair" practices
  Microsoft has reportedly engaged in over the years.  But does it all add up
  to a violation of the U.S. antitrust laws--as interpreted by the court that
  will have the last word here, the U.S.D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
          At bottom, the antitrust case against Microsoft seems to be that it
  has engaged in "tying," i.e., selling its Windows OS only to those who also
  agree to buy its browser, IE, and some other applications.  Is that illegal
  under the U.S. antitrust laws?  The short answer is, alas, No.
          To understand the Supreme Court's interpretation of our antimonopoly
  laws, you have to be able to grasp the following situation:  A murder
  occurs.  The judge says, okay, what "effect" did it have?  Was the victim
  Albert Einstein, so that his death is going to adversely affect world
  science?  Murder, as such, is not illegal here. There must be, as a
  consequence of that regrettable act, some discernible, harmful "effect" on
  society as a whole.  Otherwise, the murder is harmless and therefore lawful.  
          Bill Gates' lawyers have explained to him that, before he can be
  convicted of anything under the U.S. antitrust laws, his enemies have to
  prove that (a) he's inflated prices and (b) he's suppressed innovation.  
          Charles Mueller, Editor