[lug] Monopoly huh...

[Jeffrey B. Siegal]

Calvin Dodge wrote:
> but declaring Microsoft has "monopoly power over Intel
> operating systems" (and therefore needs to be punished for that) makes about as
> much sense as slapping Apple for having "monopoly power over Motorola systems".

The judge has *not* found that Microsoft should be punished for having
monopoly power.  *Having* monopoly power is not even against the law.  What is
against the law is *abuse* of monopoly power to protect or extend a monopoly. 
Finding that Microsoft holds monopoly power is a necessary but not sufficient
step toward finding a violation of antitrust law.  

The relevance of yesterday's finding was that if the judge had found that
Microsoft did not have monopoly power in *any* market, however you want to
define it, the case would effectively be over.  Since he found that Microsoft
does have monopoly power, the case proceeds to determine whether they have in
fact violated the law.

> And so does Apple, in _its_ field.

Possibly so, in which case Apple *could* be successfully sued for violations
of anti-trust *if* they had improperly used that monopoly power.