Re: Norris' trial testimony

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Case Roole on 6/10/1999 2:13 PM ---

>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.

Perhaps so, but that's not the heart of the government's case, really. 
The Norris testimony seemed like such a bombshell because, on its face, 
it looked like a clear instance of Microsoft brutally shoving a 
competitive product off the market. Though they certainly tried, did 
Microsoft hurt IBM in this instance? That's not at all clear. I think it 
ought to be apparent by now that the antitrust cops in this country don't 
prosecute and convict on misdemeanors.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net