From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:01:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.232207.1612@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.091821.7707@actrix.gen.nz>, Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> |> Standard Oil (You know, J D Rockefeller) was broken up because it bacame an
> |> effective monopoly. IBM was very nearly broken up. There are numerous
> |> instances of too-powerful companies being forced to relinquish control over
> |> markets.
> 
> BZZZZZT!!!!  Thanks for playing.  
> Standard Oil at its height was _never_ a monopoly.

I have just deleted a long discourse on this and will substitute it with the
following. 
 
Standard Oil got too big and too powerful. It represented a danger to both
it's competitors and to the government because of this wealth and power. I
have seen figures here quoting Standard Oil at 90% in 1890 and 66% in 1911 or
1921.....these figures do not show that the market for oil in that time had
exploded exponentially and that the accompanying wealth and power conferred on
a company controlling more than half this market caused many people to worry.
 
Quite properly, too. Such power *will* be abused. It is just a matter of time.
 
So they broke it up. 

Microsoft dominates an important part of what might be termed a strategic
industry. This makes
every shake of their tail intensely interesting to people who feel threatened
by the power this position represents.  

> Please try again:  Can you name a real, genuine, monopoly in _any_ country 
> at _any_ time (before or after antitrust legislation or in a country without 
> antitrust legislation) that wasn't created by a government?  You can't
> do it because there never has been such a beast.

I'll agree with you. There have been no "classic" monopolies other than those
created by governments.......or copyright. 

> Markets which the goverment stays out of are very harsh on monopolies.

In a similar vein to your challenge......show me a market that governments
stay out of......I don't think there have been too many of those, either. 
 
The truth is....and this is more or less what I have been arguing all
along....modern business is a mixtrue of business activity against a
regulatory background.....
 
The difference between us appears to be that i accept this regulatory
background as necessary while you find it repugnant. In the particular case of
MS, I am satisfied that they have acheived - by fair means or foul - a market
position that will allow them to dominate the small computing industry (for
all practical purposes).
 
I don't think this is healthy. It may be perfectly legal and what a good job
they have done! But this concentration of market power itself represents a
potential to pervert and subvert the market. On this basis, the normal
practice is to fragment the organisation. 
 
Like playing cards. One hand is dealt, played....then the cards are shuffled
and re-dealt. This produces new diversity and new growth and prevents stasis
and deterioration.
 
Fair? I don't know....but it seems to work.
 
Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
+64 4 478 4714                          | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy