[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What Would It Take to Win?
We haven't finished yet!
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
> 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