[Am-info] Windows overpriced?

[John Poltorak]

I have often read that Windows is overpriced, but in a monopoly situation 
there is no market to determine the correct price, so how does one prove 
that a price is too high?

In the case of Xbox, a seasoned monopolist enters a new market and expects 
to be able to set its own price, but the invisible hand of the market 
intervenes and reduces the price of the Xbox by a third. That is a huge 
cut. On the face of it this shows that competition is good for the 
consumer, so how come the US competition authorities think that consumers 
get such a good deal from Microsoft who can set prices at whatever level 
they like because the invisble hand of the market cannot intervene to 
correct the situation?

I was reading something in:-
 
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/70773_antitrust17.shtml

where it said:-


The Redmond company argued that the states, unlike the federal
government, should have to show that their citizens specifically were
harmed by Microsoft's illegal attacks on its competitors.


Now whether states do need to show this or not it should be a fairly easy 
exercise to show that consumers benefit from competition, so lack of it 
does real financial harm. However, I did not hear anything about the harm 
being done to consumers in the case presented by the dissenting states 
over the last couple of months. 

Have I missed something here?

-- 
John