I thought that tie-ins were driven by contracts, not technology. On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 12:44:09PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > I don't remember, but wasn't IBM once (i.e., back in the 1960s) accused of > illegal tie-ins that restrained trade? (so the key word is tie-in?) > > ------------------------ > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:15 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:33943] Re: Re: Artificial economic inefficiency > > > > > > On Friday, January 17, 2003 at 09:55:04 (-0800) Michael > > Perelman writes: > > >I thought Bill Lear's question yesterday was very > > interesting. Given his > > >background, I'm surprised he did not relate his question to > > software. For > > >example, Microsoft makes it difficult to run its programs on Linux. > > > > With software, you can introduce all sorts of fun little "features" > > which makes it difficult to use, but makes it more profitable. > > > > I was hoping you econ folks would have named this nasty practice by > > now. > > > > > > Bill > >
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
