[citation][nom]knutjb[/nom]As we have seen GM got too big and colapsed in on itself and Toyota has had to borrow large quantities of cash from the Japanese government to prevent collapse, bad analogy of apples and oranges. Just because government writes a law to make some more equal than others or chooses to unequally apply a law to "balance the playing field" doesn't mean one can automatically call it a great law, or great implementation of said law. There are plenty of poorly written laws on the books. When the government runs amok and creates laws that stifle any market the consumers are the end loser. Yes slam MS for what they DID, they are now doing what the EU have asked but the EU once given an inch demands a foot. When other companies consider expanding into other world markets they will look at the EU's handling of MS and ask themselves do they want the same kind of treatment. They might consider other markets less encumbered by government over regulation, or increase the end price to the consumer to cover future legal expenses, all of which negatively impact the consumer. Just look at the US, the more this current government picks winners and losers the longer the economy will stagnate. Same goes for the EU. Show me, if you can, ANY business that government runs more effectively than the private sector. Government needs to step back and watch the game, applying the rules equally to all players, regardless of size and not pick winners or losers, that's the markets job. MS was once a tiny speck on IBM's radar.[/citation]
The law is the law, and in the EU it hasn’t changed for quite a while. Most if not all EU countries had the same or similar rules in place before the union. The USA’s antitrust rules are not a whole lot different, and chances are MS would have been split into two companies by now if Bush’s administration hadn’t interfered. The EU is not trying to take over MS or even split it up, they are merely trying to make them follow the current legislation.
It’s becoming clear that you simply do not share my political views, or those the western economy was built on. I don’t want to turn this into a sociologic, economic discussion, but before we agree to disagree allow me to make an example:
Let’s say we have a market for sinks and one for toilets.
The sink market consists of 3 companies:
A: has a market share of 90%
B: has a market share of 5%
C: has a market share of 5%.
The market is unhealthy. A spends large amounts of money on advertising securing its share. A can pretty much set the price as it see fit, with B and C locked down with a small but dedicated customer base. B and C have every reason to invest in innovation, but have too small a cash flow to take a risk large enough to really any impact on the market.
While the state isn’t going to seize control of A, it’s keeping a watchful eye on its methods. Preventing A from dumping prices and securing retailers in an effort to drive B and C out of the market or keep newcomers away. Lower prices are good for consumers in the short run, but in the long run healthy competition will pay off.
The state doesn’t care how B and C spend their money, due to A’s monopoly they are simply unable to do anything that can qualify as anti-competitive.
The toilet market consists of 5 companies:
A: has a market share of 15% (same A as above)
B: has a market share of: 20% (same B as above)
D: has a market share of 30%
F: has a market share of: 15%
G: has a market share of: 20%
This is a healthy market, there are no secret cartels and all companies spend a fair share of their income on research and innovation.
A however wishes to get hold of a larger market share. The toilet market isn’t very profitable but it’s a great way to get your name out there. Knowing that plumbers all around the world have to buy their sinks A start bundling their toilets with the sinks. Plumbers can buy toilets from A separately but if they buy a sink from A they automatically get a toilet as well. Not surprisingly the plumbers’ interest in toilets from B, D, E and F is decreasing at a very rapid rate. Soon thereafter F pulls out of the market and A now have a share of 55%.
The state steps in and forces A to offer their sinks without the toilet “attached” in an effort to bring back competition to the market.
B decides to focus on delivering a complete bathroom solution and bundles its products, B now have a market share of 15% on the toilet market, and 4 % on the sink market.
The state doesn’t care what B does for now, as their business model is currently of no threat to the market(s).
If B on the other hand was to focus on delivering high-end toilets and sinks only - and that market could be considered separate from the market A, D and F is present on, leaving only G, it’s quite possible B would be dominant on this new market. The state would then step in and force B to sell its products separately, allowing B’s sinks to be matched with G’s toilets.
This is how the current system works and why it’s in place.
MS might have had a better product than Netscape when it gained its monopoly but due to the bundling policy MS share grew at a very rapid rate. When new competition arrived (products that at times have been significantly better then the IE alternative) and one would think the market share would even out it didn’t. This was archived thanks to IE being tied to windows. This is why the EU stepped in.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram