I was wondering why there had been so much talk recently of ramping up antitrust attacks on Google. Now I know. This is the way politics works. See my letter on antitrust protectionism (pdf) if you need more.
Understanding politics
Previous post: John Calvin as behavioral economist
Next post: Thanks for your interest
That’s the same reason Microsoft worked so hard to kill Netscape. It took a while but they finally saw the writing on the wall. I think it’s interesting that Google was one of the primary corporate sponsors of Firefox (which was built up from the original Navigator ashes).
Milton Friedman in a 2005 Charlie Rose interview, “I used to believe that there was some virtue of an anti-trust action… And now I don`t really believe it. I believe now that the anti-trust actions have on the whole done more harm than good. That the only place where you have real monopolies is where government provides a monopoly.”
Because many (most) people in this country are dip$#!+s. And, this is one of the best.
If navigator sucked so badly, why were they able to charge $25-30 per copy? The only way M$ could beat them was to give away IE. (Which included preinstalling it.)
If Netscape sucked, IE sucked hard.
No Right Wing-Nut, I’m talking about the technical quality of the product. What you are describing is a Netscape market monopoly that Microsoft was trying to besiege.
Now, people didn’t like that because MSFT had a OS monopoly. And, if they felt strongly about that, they could have addressed it instead of obstructing a superior browser product.
I note the letter you drafted was not signed by anyone well known in IO, nobody from Harvard, Chicago (no, John Lott does not count), MIT and so on. This is hardly surprising – those are the guys who may have active or future consulting contracts / testimonies in antitrust cases. Am wondering however if you think this list weakens the point you are trying to make in the eyes of policymakers & makes it seem ideological to… President Clinton or others.
I remember reading an article many years ago (maybe by Liebowitz or Margolis?) attacking the anti-MS lawsuit in which they pointed out the growing market share of Google and how it would be useful to have a strong MS search engine and portal presence to compete with them. Anyone remember that pre-Bing presence? Or know how/why it failed?
I don’t remember that, but I was pondering the irony that whatever they were trying to do, aside from shakedown a profitable company, they didn’t do. MSFT still has an OS monopoly. Their browser has been surpassed by free Firefox. Google is a viable competitor to MSFT’s OS.
I guess one rationale was that computers were some monolithic entity and on-line was just a piece of the puzzle, and if MSFT got their foot in the door they would control that too. Apparently, the government thinks they succeeded because MSFT has never gotten anywhere on-line. Of course, everyone else knows it is because of business decisions. MSFT hasn’t had a shortage of cash to invest in on-line strategies. The irony is that google has used on-line products to threaten the off-line territory dominated by MSFT and now the Feds want to hamstring Google.
Elliot
They’re not after share in the OS market, they’re goal has been to make the OS market irrelevant. Think of it this way, your computer and OS are increasingly irrelevant as it relates to your use of the internet. What happens when everything you do on a computer is on the internet? Google, MS, Apple (via mobile phones), and maybe Oracle (they probably won’t commit to it) are all after ownership of the standards that define application delivery over the internet. MS real monopoly wasn’t Windows as you think of it. No one bought windows in the same way one bought a Ford truck or GM car. You bought windows because that’s where all the software ran. In the near future everyone anticipates that software will run on the internet which gives everyone a second chance to beat MS and therefor become MS. Google via gmail and google docs is quickly showing that they will be very competitive at this. Others are racing to catch up, and MS in particular is attempting to cut off Google’s oxygen (search related money) allowing Google to invest heavily in internet application delivery. If they succeed in cutting off Google’s revenues, Oracle probably wins by buying Google because they’ve been so successful at purchasing and running other tech firms (and would have plenty of cash to throw at finishing the job).
Could someone please point me in the direction of the “antitrust attacks on Google”? I was not aware of anything in the courts.
From a relevant NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/companies/18antitrust.html
“In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,† said Michael Katz, an economist at the Stern School of Business of New York University.”
PS : Womdering whether companies can become ” too big to be trusted “.
Thanks, Alex.
In fact my next post was after I did a better search and read the NY Times article.
Apologies for the earlier comment.
If you wait until something is in the courts or legislation is being “debated” the decisions have already been made.
As I keep reminding my wife, we didn’t make the world this way, we just report it.
good
Comments on this entry are closed.