Re: Should the Fed Gov break up Microsoft?

[wbdesnoy@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

the.cat.in.the.hat@usa.net wrote:
: linux as a vehicle for open sourcing: may that make it a monopoly of open 
: source? in linux's light, there are no other os's (i can think of) that 
: have it's source
: fully open as such: can we sue ummm......... torvalds?

Linux is not the only "open source" operating system around, given that *BSD
(another UNIX-like OS) and Minix are distributed with source code.  But even
if this wasn't the case, Linux does not have enough market control to be
considered a monopoly -- let alone an abuser of monopoly power. 

If what you are suggesting were the case, then Apple could have been considered
a monopoly for selling Apple II computers.  Only an Apple II could, after all,
run Apple II software.  (Ignoring the fact that there were some clones, of
course.)  No, that is absurd.  The Apple II was competing against many 
incompatible systems at different stages of its history.  Not only that, but
it was usually competing in a healthy way.  (None of this ~9/10ths of the
market for one company, ~5/100ths for another, and the rest scattered among
a host of niche players.)

Uniqueness is not a measure of monopoly power, abuse (including control of the
distribution channels) is.  Microsoft is an abuser, which is why the DOJ wants
to break them up.

--
Stopped (SIGTTOU)         byron.
$

(c) copyright 1999 by Byron Desnoyers Winmill.
You are free to distribute and archive this message for personal use only.
Archiving this message for commercial purposes is expressly forbidden.