|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 1998-08-01
Update: Kartellklage gegen Microsoft macht Sinn-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- updating 98.5.17/1 et al Update: Kartellklage gegen Microsoft macht Sinn Die Klage des des U.S. Justizministeriums stehe felsenfest, meint Robert Bork in seinem Weissbuch zum Thema Micro/soft & Macht/missbrauch. Anlass für diese Überzeugung ist ein Präzedenz/urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofes aus dem Jahre 1951 gegen die Eigentümer des Lorain Journals. Die Tat/umstände sind frappierend ähnlich: near/on 100prozentige Marktdominanz & Gebrauch derselben zum Nachteil der Konsumenten & der Konkurrenz. -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- The antitrust case brought by the Department of Justice against Microsoft is rock solid. That is also true of the parallel antitrust action brought by twenty states. The controlling legal precedent is Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 143 (1951). The Journal was a newspaper that, as the Supreme Court put it, "enjoyed a substantial monopoly in Lorain Ohio of the mass dissemination of news and advertising, both of a local and national character." It had a 99% coverage of Lorain families. "Those factors," the Supreme Court said, "made the Journal an indispensable medium of advertising for many Lorain concerns." A challenge to the Journal's monopoly arose, however, with the establishment of radio station WEOL in a town eight miles away. The newspaper responded by refusing to accept local advertising from any Lorain County business that advertised on WEOL. The Supreme Court held that this was an attempt to monopolize, illegal under '2 of the Sherman Act. There being no apparent efficiency justification for the Journal's action, it was deemed predatory and hence illegal. The parallel between the Journal's action and Microsoft's behavior is exact. Microsoft has a similarly overwhelming market share of the market for personal computer operating systems and it imposes conditions on those with whom it deals that exclude rivals without any apparent efficiency justification for such behavior. When a monopolist behaves in this fashion, it violates '2 of the Sherman Act. The case against Microsoft is not an attack on vertical integration; that is not the objection to the coupling of Microsoft's browser, the Internet Explorer, and its Windows operating system. Like Lorain Journal, the Microsoft case concerns a monopolist's horizontal attempt to preserve its monopoly by destroying a potential rival. An analogy would be the owner of a toll bridge, which is the only bridge across a river, paying the owner of land to deny access to a site where a competitive bridge is partly built. In Microsoft's case, as in Lorain Journal, the attack is largely carried out through vertical exclusionary contracts. The newspaper imposed a requirement that advertisers not deal with the radio station. Microsoft imposes multiple requirements on customers and suppliers that inhibit their dealings with Microsoft's rivals. Full Text http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2123665,00.html -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- TIP Download free PGP 5.5.3i (Win95/NT & Mac) http://keyserver.ad.or.at/pgp/download/ -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by Harkank published on: 1998-08-01 comments to office@quintessenz.at subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|