Re: Copyright upholds Monopoly,was: Microsoft's OS competitors

Mario Heilmann <a3[_at_]a3.com> writes:
>
> How come the anti trust probe went nowhere? Why don't they create
> exemptions to copyright protection to break up this monopoly? Why do
> they not force Microsoft to publish, COMPLETELY, and in advance, all
> operating system specifications, and to prohibit the use of undocumented
> system calls by any application software. If the specifications were
> complete and exhaustive, reverse engineering is unnecessary. And, the
> way the monopoly hides itself behind a shroud of secrecy, reverse
> engineering is actually the only possible self defense.
>
> Why do anti trust authorities not require good programming techniqes:
> modularity and clearly defined interfaces between parts of the operating
> system? Thus, other companies could, more easily produce parts of the
> operating system, the same way as car parts can be made by many different
> companies?
>

The real "problem" of the Microsoft monopoly (if you think it is a problem; I'm not yet fully convinced) is simply not one that antitrust law is equipped to address. Microsoft controls the OS market not so much because of anticompetitive conduct (though there has been some of that), but because the market is characterized by network externalities sufficiently strong that everyone wants what everyone else is buying. Antitrust law can stop the anticompetitive conduct, but I don't believe that would eliminate Microsoft's monopoly.

Requiring compatible interfaces is more attractive, but it is hard to see how you could do it without an antitrust lawyer looking over the shoulder of each of Microsoft's programmers.

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu

For information on the Intellectual Property program at UT, see http://www.utexas.edu/law/intelprop/ Received on Mon Apr 28 1997 - 15:27:35 GMT