Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[Rjack]

agitator iamicus_curious wrote:
> "Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
> S8GdneGAU9atAubUnZ2dnUVZ_gOWnZ2d@giganews.com">news:S8GdneGAU9atAubUnZ2dnUVZ_gOWnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > amicus_curious wrote:
> > > "Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message 
> > > ItKdnWlB3r37H-bUnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com">news:ItKdnWlB3r37H-bUnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > True but you missed the point.
> >
> > "...                                            And in seven
> > years, the Bush Justice Department has not brought a single
> > monopolization case." -- 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 
> >
> >
> >
> > "Monopolization case" as in:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
> > Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
> >
> > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or 
> > combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize 
> > any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with 
> > foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on 
> > conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding 
> > $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by 
> > imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, 
> > in the discretion of the court.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > With the Bush administration gone we could see competitors emboldened 
> > for the first time since 1998.
> I understood the point to be as stated in your original post, i.e. that 
> Microsoft will find itself in the crosshairs of the Obama 
> administration's DOJ.  But Obama's thoughts seem to be contained in:
>
> "The consequences of lax enforcement for consumers are clear. Take 
> health care, for
> example. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 
> years. The
> American Medical Association reports that 95% of insurance markets in the
> United States are now highly concentrated and the number of insurers has 
> fallen by
> just under 20% since 2000. These changes were supposed to make the 
> industry more
> efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed, increasing over 87 
> percent over the
> past six years."
>
> Where he refers to the lack of oversight for mergers and acquisitions as 
> the culprit.  Microsoft has grown to its monopoly position via 
> development of its core product and not through such mergers.  I don't 
> know if healthcare insurers are bad or good, they do seem to compete 
> with one another even when there are only a handful of big ones.  But 
> the money there is a lot.  My company and I together pay about $700 per 
> month for coverage.  I buy a new computer about every three years and 
> may end up indirectly paying Microsoft $50 or $100 for Windows.  
> Healthcare (and auto insurance and just about everything else) is a much 
> bigger fish to fry than the embedded cost of the OS in a PC.

I may be that the Obama administration won't initiate action 
spontaneously but you can bet that Big Blue will stir the pot
any way it can. IBM is the biggest agitator in the EU and I'm sure 
they'll test the waters with the new Obama administration.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)