"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> Microsoft's "monopoly" is a chimera. It is not structural - it does not
> result from Microsoft's control of the movement of goods or services, or a
> natural resource, or a market, or a transportation route. If a new OS
> appears that offered more value to customers than Windows does, Windows
> would vanish just as fast as CP/M, AppleDOS, and the TRS-80 OS. It's the
> only "monopoly" in history that has resulted in steadily >decreasing< costs
> to customers, and rapid and continuous >improvements< in the monopolized
> good in question. Judge Jackson is an ass with an axe to grind, and just
> like last time, I fully expect him to be overturned, and reprimanded on
> appeal.
A quick note (and people may want to hit the next button here, too): The primary
problem with the Microsoft monopoly on operating systems is not the fact that
they control the monster's share of the OS market (because, quite frankly,
they're the best OS on the market -- and I say that because it is the OS which
is best at satisfying the customer's needs); it's because they use that monopoly
as an unfair device of competition to drive the sales of their non-OS products.
This is functionally equivalent to an oil baron owning the rail lines which his
competitors have to ship their oil across. It is a club which Microsoft has used
against computer manufacturers and against other software developers. And it
*is* a problem.
Justin Bacon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
