I have no idea about the legal requirements for a monopoly, but it seems fair to me that the test of a mainframe monopoly should involve criteria like:
1. Do most companies have more than one reasonable competing vendor/supplier able to satisfy their needs? Some companies might be able to convert to another platform, i.e., something other than the traditional IBM compatible mainframe. 2. Can companies afford to convert to another vendor's product? Some conversions might cost too much to be practical. 3. Is the number of customers, who cannot effectively convert, large enough to have a significant negative affect on their industry, other industries, their region, other regions, etc.? In other words, anti-trust enforcement should be largely for the good of the public, not a few companies. 4. What discourages other vendors from attempting to effectively compete? Someone suggested that IBM's 64-bit discouraged other vendors offering competing products. Was there no way for other vendors to make money on 64-bit products? Are patents, software copyrights, etc. promoting competition or choking it? To me there can be a fine line between discovering something (like discovering fire) and inventing something (like how to start a fire, where there are many ways to accomplish that)? Don Williams ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
