The following communication was sent to me privately and I am
accordingly omitting the author's name. His point, if I understand it
correctly, is an important one. The Justice Department claims that
Microsoft's browser, IE, is a 'separate' product, not an 'integrated' part
of its OS. Justice has not, so far, asserted that any of the OTHER
components of that OS are 'separate' products, i.e., are stand-alone product
'markets' in their own right.
Reiser, on the other hand--according to my correspondent--has done
just that. His case rests on the premise that not only is Microsoft's
BROWSER a separate and distinct product--independent of the underlying
OS--but so is a component called 'FILE SYSTEMS.' A 'slippery slope' here?
First ban the 'integration' of a browser into OS, then (per the Reiser case)
make Bill open up his OS dominance of 'file systems,' and after that go on
to all the OTHER current OS parts, making him disgorge each of them into the
open market where his version would have to compete on price and quality
with that of upstarts like Hans Reiser? Peel away everything but the final,
INDIVISIBLE core of OS? 'Deconcentrate' Bill's ultimate monopoly, his OS?
Scary, right :)?
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
http://webpage.metrolink.net/~cmueller
******************
Charles Mueller wrote:
>Hans Reiser his filed his own antitrust case against Microsoft.
And Reiser's complaint is
> I have been damaged by inability to effectively
>enter the market for file systems for the Windows family of operating
>systems >as a result of
>Microsoft's lack of due diligence in arranging that the components of its
>>software systems are
>separately available to competition from component vendors.
Charles, Reiser has made Microsoft's case against Justice for them. That
is, he raises the issue I raised once before: if the browser has to be
separate from the operating system, why shouldn't each component of the
operating system be treated (be legally required to be treated) as a
separate commodity? Antitrust as an approach to public policy presupposes
that commodities are distinct identifiable items, distinguishable as
potatos are distinguishable from tomatos. One can then define a market for
a commodity and count up the number of competitors, and say unambiguously
if buying one commodity is "tied" to buying another. But computer software
consists of lists of lines of code. Why draw the boundaries between
commodities at one place rather than another in the list of lines of code?
Conversely, suppose the law should, as Reiser suggests, require that each
"component" of an OS be separately available for use with complementary
code produced by competitors. What would happen? The application software I
buy to keep track of my postcard collection would require one set of
"components," and the one I buy to scan and print the pictures would
require another suite of "components," and one wouldn't work with a system
that would support the other, and I would be out more money for less
functionality. I think that would work in Microsoft's favor, when all is
said and done -- since the only compatibility standard would be the brand
name, and Microsoft has the brand name. Indeed, that's their strategy in a
nutshell, and it would work even more splendidly in the legal world Reiser
envisions.
