Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Seriously though, the government's approach to this is idiotic. They're acting like a blind giant that's made a huge fuss over something and is no longer quite sure whether its argument was valid, but knows that it has to strike at something in order to save face. their comment on how splitting up Microsoft and the subsequent use of Office in other operating systems creating potential competition for Windows is preposterous and shows that the DOJ has the reasoning skills of a 4th grader.


I don't see how splitting Windows company from Office company makes the two new Microsofts compete. We will see consumers benefit from seeing Office support on linux. But that's about it.

I think it's ironic how Mr. Buffet came to the conclusion that technology changes too fast to create shareholder value. I sit here and think of all the tech companies with huge market share (Yahoo & Aol keep growing while Go.com, Lycos and others are losing.
Dell keeps pulling ahead. Cisco, Sebel, Orcale, RealNetworks all have tons of market share. I thought this industry was too competitive to allow these companies to get 50+% market share? Really, Microsoft's barriers to entry are WAY higher than Cokes. The whole software industry is based on Micorosft's APIs or code. What industry is based on coke? What are coke's barriers? It's brand? hah..)


Seriously, though, Microsoft is a monopoly. So is Cisco. So could Realnetworks. Being a monopoly is legal, but how you use that power is what the government has a problem with. I'm not that knowledge about the AT&T break-up, but what exactly did AT&T
do that was wrong? ATT didn't have 100% share. It was more like 99.99%

I'm sure some one out there had a cell phone as his main choice or some people decided not to have a phone at all.

I'm sure some one could have started a company to compete with ATT, although it would have cost billions. Same for Microsoft. It would cost tons of money to replace Windows. High, high barriers to entry. That's all. Infospace could do the same. Infospace could create such a powerful end-to-end solution that it would cost millions to compete with them, thus giving them a monopoly like position in their market.

I have a few more points. One, Microsoft says linux or the MacOS is competition. You could have made the same case for AT&T. ATT could have said the cell phone market (although at a young stage) or even mail is competition. Both are weak arguments, although Apple does provide a decent option.

I'm not sure how ATT leverage their monopoly to create more monopolies for the company? We know MS leveraged Windows by integrate Office to dominate the applications market. Microsoft then used Windows to integrate and dominate the browser market. In the not to distant future, Microsoft could leverage Internet Explore to dominate the portal market. They could integrate and tie the MSN portal with the browser. Could it have the same effect as before? Maybe.

I think this is what the government has a problem. I, as a consumer have a problem with it, too.


You could make the case that Cisco does the same. Because Cisco has a monopoly in the router space they use their market cap to buy themselves into new markets, but that still doesn't guarantee they'll dominate. Microsoft uses it's monopoly in a different way.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.