Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
ItKdnWlB3r37H-bUnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com">news:ItKdnWlB3r37H-bUnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > "Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
> > bumdnUH8Ov-23ebUnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com">news:bumdnUH8Ov-23ebUnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > With the advent of the Obama administration, it is generally
> > > expected that the Justice Department and the FTC will become much
> > > more aggressive in antitrust enforcement matters.
> > >
> > > With Microsoft's OS share hovering around 90%,
> > >
> > > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
> > >
> > > how can Microsoft best subtly assist OSX and Linux in order to
> > > avert antitrust prosecutions under the new administration that will
> > > resemble those in the EU?
> > I think that the Obama administration is more likely to consider the 
> > adverse effect of such silly prosecution on the overall economy. 
> > Consider that Microsoft is a large company that generates more than 60B 
> > worth of revenue per year.  Why would the Obama administration try to 
> > hold them in check? Why would they favor replacing that 60B company with 
> > a collection of open sourcerers who rely on trade in kind and are adverse 
> > to such levels of profits?  Would destroying Microsoft help the economy? 
> > I don't think so and I doubt that Obama's advisors are going to recommend 
> > that course of action.
> >
> > Microsoft has absorbed the EU fines with ease since their prices in the 
> > EU are significantly higher than elsewhere in the world.  They will stay 
> > in the EU as long as it is profitable to do so and so far it has been.
>
> Statement of Senator Barack Obama for the American Antitrust Institute
>
> http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
>
> ...
> ...
> "Regrettably, the current administration has what may be the weakest
> record of antitrust enforcement of any administration in the last
> half century. Between 1996 and 2000, the FTC and DOJ together
> challenged on average more than 70 mergers per year on the grounds
> that they would harm consumer welfare. In contrast, between 2001 and
> 2006,the FTC and DOJ on average only challenged 33. And in seven
> years, the Bush Justice Department has not brought a single
> monopolization case."
"As president, I will direct my administration to reinvigorate antitrust 
enforcement. It will
step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or 
restructure those
mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing 
those that do
not.
My administration will take aggressive action to curb the growth of 
international cartels,
working alone and with other jurisdictions to ensure that firms, wherever 
located, that
collude to harm American consumers are brought to justice."

Microsoft is not the result of many mergers and acquisitions, rather the 
product of a rapidly growing market for computers in the home and workplace. 
They do not control the means of production and distribution of software, 
rather they control the production and distribution of Windows which is the 
product that the consumers seem to want in lieu of any other for the 
purpose.

It may well be useful to break up some conglomerates, but it is a wrong 
notion of business to think that the ideal is for there to be a lot of 
companies in a product market beating one another up on price.  Rather it is 
necessary that companies invent and market products that make things more 
efficient and lower cost overall, benefiting the user and the supplier 
alike.  Two or more companies offering the same product to the same 
consumers and cutting prices to the bone only serve to destroy progress.