Comments on: Anti-Trust is Not About Consumers, Yet Again http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Karthik http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4860 Karthik Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:21:05 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html#comment-4860 <p>The old bootlegger-baptist scenario without the baptist?</p> The old bootlegger-baptist scenario without the baptist?

]]> By: apotheon http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4859 apotheon Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:44:18 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html#comment-4859 <p>It's worth noting that, though the antitrust legislation involving Microsoft was initiated to serve the interests of competitors rather than the interests of consumers, the anticompetitive practices of which Microsoft was accused were detrimental to consumer value. The reason for that is simply that Microsoft's anticompetitive practices were oriented toward ensuring market dominance by limiting consumer options and, thus, consumer value due to competitive effects in the market. If all Microsoft actually did is bundle software, the anticompetitive arguments would be pathetically thin -- but it actually acted to lock competitors out of markets directly, through such practices as using its market majority position to economically threaten OEM vendors if they carried competing software.</p> <p>That doesn't change your points at all -- I just think it's worth noting.</p> It’s worth noting that, though the antitrust legislation involving Microsoft was initiated to serve the interests of competitors rather than the interests of consumers, the anticompetitive practices of which Microsoft was accused were detrimental to consumer value. The reason for that is simply that Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices were oriented toward ensuring market dominance by limiting consumer options and, thus, consumer value due to competitive effects in the market. If all Microsoft actually did is bundle software, the anticompetitive arguments would be pathetically thin — but it actually acted to lock competitors out of markets directly, through such practices as using its market majority position to economically threaten OEM vendors if they carried competing software.

That doesn’t change your points at all — I just think it’s worth noting.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html/comment-page-1#comment-4858 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:51:46 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/02/antitrust_is_no.html#comment-4858 <p>Why do satellite radio companies require the permission of the American government before conducting their business? Is it because they are based in America?</p> Why do satellite radio companies require the permission of the American government before conducting their business? Is it because they are based in America?

]]>