Re: Norris' trial testimony

[Case Roole <cjr@xs4all.nl>]

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Mitch Stone wrote:
> --- From a message sent by Jerry Clabaugh on 6/9/1999 10:21 AM ---
> 
> >Possibly the most damning testimony of the trial:
> >
> >http://www.msnbc.com/news/277875.asp
> 
> The most recent wrinkle in the Norris testimony is his admission that, in 
> the end, Microsoft did not get what it wanted from IBM. The government is 
> now left with the task of demonstrating that it was illegal for them to 
> try to intimidate IBM into not competing, as they can't really show that 
> Microsoft succeeded in removing competitive products from the market -- a 
> significantly weaker point. This makes it look like Microsoft was not 
> operating the well-oiled steamroller portrayed by the government, but 
> something more on the order of inept extortion racket. I would not be in 
> the least bit surprised if Microsoft made that case.
> 
> Ironically, it may take Microsoft to admit that Microsoft isn't as clever 
> as most people think.

I disagree. The device used by Microsoft is not prohibition but taxation. The
same device is used by governments to deal with pollution. Closing factories to
prevent pollution is unattractive politically, so they resort to taxing
polluters. For both regulators attempting to drive back "pollution", their
proposal is backed up by the power to hurt the polluter, be it by the law or
by monopoly power in the market.

-cjr