grounds for going after Microsoft initially is that they were putting
these kinds of agreements in place with computer manufacturers. The
manufacturers agreed to it because they had no alternative - Microsoft
would either price gouge or not sell to them if they did choose to
preinstall other software.
I understand your question, I think, about whether there is any value to
these laws at all. I think there is, I certainly don't want Microsoft
determining the cost to me for my phone service, utilities, food
products, etc. The harm of monopolies is not that they shut down
competition in their own market, the harm of monopolies is that they
shut down competition period. They eventually consolidate into new
markets, use inflated capital resources gained from their original
monopoly to put other companies out of business, etc. The only thing
that can compete with a monopoly is another monopoly, and it is only a
matter of time before one is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other.
Now, I do not believe a centralized consolidation of resources (a
monopoly) is compatible with capitalism or democracy. In fact, I think
it is the opposite of a democratic state or republic - the people's
ability to make decisions about the course of their nation is dependent
on their being able to implement these ideas, and this is not possible
when one person or group controls all resources.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 10:38 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Microsoft Fined 613 Million?!
> There would be nothing wrong with that were it not for the
> fact Microsoft has been caught using it's monopoly to shut
> other products out of the marketplace. This has nothing to do
> with building a better product, it has to do with business
> practices that make competition impossible. For instance,
> with Dell, Gateway, and HP, computer manufacturers were not
> allowed to pre-install Netscape, Real Media, AOL, etc. per
> their purchase agreements for Windows, effectively shutting
> down access to this software for millions of individuals. And
> remember how hard it was to switch from IE as your default
> browser? Maybe not for you and me, but for a less
> sophisticated user it was almost impossible.
>
> Again, the problem is not that Microsoft has a popular
> operating system or that software manufacturers all have some
> entry into the Web of M$ desktop applications. The problem is
> that Microsoft uses its popularity to shut other companies
> down through exclusive licensing agreements, technical
> design, and "integrated" applications that run by default.
I certainly do not deny that MS has done this - the question is whether
it
is illegal (or should be). You say that Dell, etc, were not allowed to
pre-install Netscape. How? Because of their agreement with MS? Why did
they
agree to it then? They had the right to fight against MS just like
anyone
else does.
-rc
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
