>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.
While I appreciate Ryan's opinion on great many things, the Microsoft
monopoly is not one of them. I would hope we could nip this discussion in
the bud, especially given the number factual errors made in the above
statement. The network effects associated with both the Microsoft operating
system and the Microsoft Office suite is not a "chimera" but rather a type
of barrier to entry. The specific structural monopolies examples you given
are physical world analogs which don't exactly capture the dynamic of a
company like Microsoft. Given WOTC's attempt to tap into these same type of
network effects, I thought you would appreciate them. Cost of both the OS
and Office have steadily risen over time in stark contrast to every other
component of a personal computer which have significantly fallen in price,
increased performance significantly.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
