Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2007 14:34 UTC, submitted by D. Suse
A group of state attorneys general urged a federal judge on Tuesday to hold Microsoft to a 2002 antitrust settlement another five years so that the company can't stymie embryonic Web 2.0 rivals of its Windows operating system. According to six states - California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Massachusetts - and the District of Columbia, Microsoft could use its Internet Explorer browser as a 'chokepoint' to block moves that might unseat Windows dominant position on the desktop. 
Thread beginning with comment 279552
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
"""
In other words, consumers don't mind, for whatever reason, trading some start up time for some dollars. And the junk they don't like *can* be removed, even if they have to call the kid down the street to do it. And, wonder of wonders, they might even *benefit* from some of those preloaded items of which MS does not approve. At any rate, it's their business, their decision, and between them and their PC vendor, as far as I'm concerned.
It may seem a bit strange to some that I am arguing for letting free market economics work in this case while advocating continued regulation at the same time. But in my view, while the free market works, and is preferable to regulation when it does, it is also prone to pathological behavior at times, especially when manipulated by a too powerful player. In this case, I see a certain degree of regulation as providing the free market the more level surface it needs to operate properly. The free market is susceptible to certain pathological behaviors.
Monopoly holders, along with the associated riches, have qualitatively different, more stringent, ethical responsibilities than others, but the same business instincts as everyone else. What would normally be considered a healthy competitive strategy becomes a competition-crushing bludgeon in the hands of a monopoly player. And that player doesn't have to be evil to do great damage. They just have to be a normal, healthy, competitive company which happens to have the special fortune of playing from a monopoly position.
Furthermore, while many focus on the fact that MS has a desktop monopoly, even using the inappropriate word "convicted" to excess, I would like to highlight the significant point that what they have is not a "natural" monopoly. It's not like the electric company, or the gas company, where the barrier to entry for the competition is prohibitively high for reasons which are unavoidable. With a natural monopoly, there is not a whole lot one can do but continue to regulate. It's somewhat like controlling a pathological condition which is incurable, with life-long treatment. The MS desktop monopoly is very much *not* a natural monopoly. In such cases, I believe that government should do what it can to encourage an actual cure. Which it is kind of doing now. But it is *way* too soon to stop the antibiotic. In fact, I would favor *increasing* the dosage.
Edited 2007-10-21 14:21