[ QUOTE ]
take microsoft vs. netscape et al. microsoft was barred from its practices by the US regulatory agency.
[/ QUOTE ]
The punishments regulators have put on MS have always come so late as to be moot, much to the dismay of the
slashdot crowd. MS has learned legal and lobbying expenses are a cost of doing business.
[ QUOTE ]
if allowed to continue, do you really think another software company could have even come close to competing with MSFT
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, since MS is facing stiff competition (not all from 'companies'), but MS has not changed how they do business. MS does exactly what regulators require them to do as a specific remedy and then find workarounds to blunt the effects.
[ QUOTE ]
(given that they would program their world standard operating system to not work with other manufacturer's products?) ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your 'given' doesn't work. MS does not, and has not used technical means to break competitors. Instead, they go to great lengths to maintain "bug for bug" compatibility between versions, so that whatever program you use continues to work. This takes enormous effort on their part (documented in this
blog and
book).
MS is far superior to Apple or Linux in backwards compatibility and it has been a big contributor to their success. Also, they produce a new OS version about every 5 years. That's too slow to crush competitors.
[ QUOTE ]
do you think MSFT wouldn't be a monopoly? or not have the ability to price preditorially?
Barron
[/ QUOTE ]
MS is a monopoly by market share. The forces that keep MS prices in check are competitors, not regulators.