Re: AT&T, IBM, SOC and M$

["John N. Bryan" <jnelson@bga.com>]

  At 4:20 PM -0000 12/21/97, claribba wrote:
  >For a lucid article on antitrust vs. AT&T, IBM, Standard Oil Co., and a
  >couple of other cases, see today's [12-21-97] San Jose Mercury article by
  >Scott Herhold & Scott Thurm "Antitrust: big no longer equals bad" at:
  >
  >	http://www.sjmercury.com/business/microsoft/docs/ms122197.htm
  >
  >No subscription is needed to read this.  It can be accessed from the
  >Mercury Center page...link on the lower right side of page.
  >
  >Claire Macdonald
  
  One point of contention for me in this article is the statement:
  
  "Many analysts think the decline of IBM offers powerful lessons about
  the limits of antitrust laws. For while those laws failed to cripple
  IBM, changing technology did."
  
  While I suppose it can be said that "Many analysts think...", I would
  take issue with the veractiy of what follows it.  I don't think it
  is accurate to imply that changing technology "crippled" IBM.  It was
  not the water that sank the ship, it was the captain and crew's failure
  to 1) recognize the leak, and 2) do something about it, (in a timely,
  and effective manner).  Specifically, I believe things might have
  been different if IBM had not agreed to the MS licensing agreement,
  (allowing MS to sell MS-DOS (nee Q-DOS) to whomever it liked), and had
  given the nascent 'personal computer' market greater consideration and
  effort. This of course has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum, but
  the point here being that it wasn't the changing technology that
  "crippled" IBM, but rather their failure to respond to it in an
  effective manner.
  
  They had everything they needed to own the market, and they gave it
  away.
  
  "But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong."
  
  -JB