"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2890604.XlGKY09tzC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ chrisv ] on Thursday 14 December 2006 16:50 \__
>
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>"chrisv" <chrisv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:1vk2o2hsjf9ks97bivanbb2e5cpvto3iu7@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I would not choose to believe that Microsoft is subsidizing the lower
>>>>>Windows price or is coercing Dell into artificially building in some
>>>>>Windows
>>>>>advantage. Dell is a very large company in their own right and a
>>>>>public
>>>>>company as well whose records are open to scrutiny by many auditors
>>>>>including the SEC, the IRS, and even the Antitrust Division of the DOJ.
>>>>>They are not going to expose their company based on the whimsy of
>>>>>another.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have much choice to "expose" themselves, considering that
>>>> Micro$oft's market power mandates that Dell buy the Micro$oft's
>>>> products.
>>>>
>>>Ah, that is true insofar as the OEMs are submitting to consumer pressure
>>>to
>>>offer Windows. That is not true for any purposeful act of artificially
>>>increasing the competitor's price differential.
>>
>> Repeat after me: "Microsoft incentives"
>
> Jury Hears Microsoft Competition Suit
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A judge on Friday told jurors they must accept as fact that a
> | federal court found in 1999 that Microsoft holds a monopoly over
> | computer operating systems and that it restricted computer
> | manufacturers' ability to use competing systems.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | She said she'll show that the company used its monopoly power
> | to exclude competition and control prices and that it conspired with
> | other companies to restrain trade, maintaining what she called a
> | chokehold on software competitors and computer manufacturers.
> |
> | "It isn't illegal to be successful," Conlin said in opening
> | remarks. "We applaud that. ... But you can't freeze out competitors
> | and punish and retaliate against people who cooperate with
> | competitors. Microsoft did all that and more."
> `----
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061201/microsoft_trial.html?.v=1
>
My opinion is that this suit is somewhat out of time and place. The
plaintiff's attorney can only claim as facts the findings of Judge Jackson
which were in regard to practices circa 1995 to 1998 and so such a claim for
damages, if they could even be proven, would be limited to that period of
time. Numerous other cases that went to trial ended up with settlements
based on Microsoft issuing vouchers to class members who could show that
they had purchased these products in the relevant time period. It was
effectively about $5 per copy of Windows purchased and very few vouchers
were even claimed and redeemed. It is doubtful that Ms. Conlin can do much
to improve that score and not founder on appeals. This action may enrich
the lawyers by a few million dollars, but will do next to nothing for the
people and will likely cause little harm to Microsoft.
|
|
