Subject: Re: Monopoly
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:44:13 -0500 (EST)

David Johnson scripsit:

> Oh how I hate defending Microsoft...

Here come de judge:

# [T]he proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share protected
# by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's failure to
# rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional indicia of
# monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that Microsoft
# enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

(Conclusions of Law, page 37.)

> The only exclusive ownership they have is of their own products, and the 
> legal priviledge of that derives from copyright law. They have no exclusive 
> ownership of "operating systems", "word processors" or anything like that. 

Right enough.  But they have control of the supply.

> Far from it. There is no legal difference between Microsoft, Inc, and Redhat, 
> Inc.

Yes there is, unless an appellate court decides otherwise.  
Red Hat has not been found by a trier of fact, the legal equivalent
of a jury, to enjoy monopoly power.

> Microsoft may be a boor, but they ain't the boogeyman.

As I have said, holding monopoly power is not in itself an offense;
engaging in certain kinds of business practices *while* you hold
monopoly power is.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter