Re: Coercive Monopolies in Technical Markets (Intro)

From: Tom WSMF (
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:41:09 PDT

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jeff Bone wrote:

--]First thought: the coarse-grained assumption of what we mean when we say
--]"market" is problematic. There is not one single marketplace for operating
--]systems but rather several distinct markets.

Granted. So what grain are we flicking around here?

--]The second problem is in the assumption that a monopoly implies 100% market
--]share in some particular market.
--]Microsoft is a monopolist; so the measure of monopoly becomes a matter of
--]degrees of *something.*

Granted, given these terms MS is definetly in the drivers seat. THough
others in the car may know how to drive access to the wheel is the key
factor of ones self preservation/determination.

--]Actually, fear, intimidation, tying, and a general set of tactics originally
--]designed to compete with / overthrow *IBM* are what won the day for Microsoft.

Yes, this is the case. Though at the time it was very much the company of
lessers taking ont he compnay of greaters. There were many lessers int he
fray (ms, digital, atari, comodore,apple) Lets not forget that MS was not
the first party in nor the strong party out fo the gate. Apples lead of
both mindsahre and pr was pretty impressive at the time. They even put out
good products then. Is MS the blame of all the failings of these others.?

Baiscly I see the need to legisalte MS in the same light as the need to
legisalte radio and tv. The answer is still, if you dont like it dont
watch/listen/consume it.

      /"\ [---=== WSMF ----]
      \ /
       X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
      / \ Against HTML Mail

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:43 PDT