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

On 4/28/97, Rebecca Winters <winbec[_at_]ezlink.com> wrote:
>
> Why should Microsoft bother with the extensive development necessary
> to create a Windows95, only to give it away for free? Unfortunately,
> software developers need to be paid.
>
> Additionally, we need one system to run computers because we enjoy the
> access it gives us to a great variety of programs and to each other's
> computers.

Most businesses invest what they need to in product development without the benefit of monopoly profits, and without having to give their products away for free. The dichotomy is simply nonexistent.

It is also false that we "need" one system to run computers, since each OS on the market has benefits and drawbacks that make it appeal to a particular market segment. What we "need," if anything, is a system for making these different OSs compatible with one another; that's different from being the same.

What puzzles me in the discussion here is that there's been no consideration of the line of antitrust cases in the US and EC (it's been a while, so the names don't bubble up to the top of my consciousness) that sweeps aside the theoretical monopoly conferred by patents and copyrights when they are used or aggregated in macro-economically anti-competitive ways. Microsoft ought not to be immune from that kind of attack, though since the DOJ doesn't have the gumption to follow it through, it will take a very well-financed private plaintiff to do so. Or maybe a consortium of Apple, Atari, Be, IBM and SCO?

Vance R. Koven
<vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> Received on Wed Apr 30 1997 - 12:56:12 GMT