|Time (PDT)||Intention||Revision 1||Revision 2|
|1430||Walk to Sizzle Pie|
Chapter 8: Regulations and Anti-Trust Laws.
This book is very convincing, I must say. It is only once it breaches subjects that I am more familiar with that I am reminded that this philosophy isn't perfect nor does its understanding of reality always properly reflect reality.
The book lists anti-trust actions against Microsoft as an example of bad anti-trust laws. I simply do not agree. Microsoft had a true monopoly. If this writing becomes a proper review of the book in the future, again I'll have to "find my sources" (probably how I'll search for writing that needs citations when I review these writings later), but off the top of my head Microsoft forced hardware manufacturers to exclusively bundle its operating system with their computers (no other OS bundling allowed), would annonce the development of software that it had no intention of devloping to deter competitors from developing that same software (aka annouce vaporware).
It was so bad that Microsoft was forced to invest in Apple (for a variety of reasons) such that they had a proper competitor. And until Apple grew in popularity, Apple basically stayed the only competitor. If not for that requirement, Microsoft could well have had a stranglehold on the market for quite some time.
And the example given in the book was about an anti-trust law that required Microsoft to allow competitors to develop software applications for its OS. Definitely a major win that allowed true competition in the variety of possible software a user has access to on their computer. Something that very likely improved Microsoft's quality to users, and set a standard for potential competing OSes to follow.
Businesses do things against their own interest for greedy reasons all the time. When forced to do a thing that fosters competition, it often improves the anti-competition businesses bottom-lines. It happened with Rockerfeller, and it probably happened with Microsoft.