Re: What Would It Take to Win?

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

  We haven't finished yet!
  
  Tod
  
  charles mueller wrote:
  
  >         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
  > Washington?
  >
  >         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
  >         ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > .-