[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Antimonopoly is Anti-Capitalist?
charles mueller[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org] writes:
> I was struck by the characterization below of antitrust as
>"anti-capitalist"--but was confident that numerous members would promptly
>correct that inaccuracy. A poster refers to antitrust as "draconian govt.
>enforced anti-capitalist measures, like the socialist 'anti dog-eat-dog'
>bill supported by competitors to a trans-continental railroad in Ayn Rand's
Ok, let me apologize for any offending remarks. It's due to my view, it's not established
in my mind that MS truely IS a monopoly, which is one of the premises of this
list. And apologies to people committed to one or another solution. This is a learning
process for me too, so here's my understanding so far:
1) There is a problem. Due to the overwhelming nature of the Redmond wizard of OZ's
massive marketing machine, many people, or 'laypeople' have come to perceive that they
have no choice in OS or Applications. This is due to the complex nature of the technology
which makes objective comparison and selection exceeding difficult, and therefore they
(MS) are riding a wave of product selection based largely on that fact that 'everybody else is
2) MS does engage in at least questionable 'take over' tactics which are definitely
'pushing the limits' or testing of what they can get away with in a new, and therefore unregulated
I'll be reading w/ interest any papers on increasing returns or natural monopolies in software
that demonstrate why it is impossible for a competitor at a disadvantage to gain market share
by investment in market research, R&D, and marketing to consumers, rather than lawsuits,
antitrust legislation, etc.; or even proposed new legislation to 'level the playing field' of what software
engineering tactics a company can use to promote their product in contrast to competitors.