At 11:05 AM -0500 4/5/00, david wrote: >At 11:18 AM 4/5/2000 -0400, you wrote: >>it's an economical fact that few will doubt that a monopoly is bad for >>the market, and thus for the economy. the state, representing (ideally) >>both participant sides of the market, has the duty of ensuring that the >>market continues to work well. >> >It is impossible to maintain a monopoly without the state's assistance. >Microsoft is entitled to whatever share of the market it can maintain >without the government's help, and without the initiation of force, theft, >or fraud. While I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, I say, "Go get em, Bill!" And why all the focus on Microsoft? Cisco and Intel both have larger market shares of their respective (and key) markets. So? Some of the typically clueless around here have alleged that Microsoft was trying to defeat its competitors and that this is some kind of predicate for antitrust action. Smoke this: Intel ran a highly successful "Crush" program. The goal was to crush competitors. Sounds fair to me. Those who argue that companies should be constrained by government or have their companies broken up are nitwits. Some, who actively work in this direction, need killing. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
