4 ms·
In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals? I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitiv
by btilly 3y ago
In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals?
I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them.
The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and legal brinkmanship, and this was confirmed by internal emails. This fact was why the EU penalties were so high. The judge explicitly wished the fines to be sufficient that Microsoft could not continue to view antitrust consent decrees as just a cost of doing business.
His argument that Microsoft was dissuaded is indeed a counterfactual argument. It is a counterfactual argument that contradicts facts established in later court cases.
This is why, over 20 years later, I stand by my previous belief. I think that my reasoning then was sound. And my predictions were validated by evidence introduced in later cases.
- AlbertCory 3y ago[flagged]
- btilly 3y agoIf you really wanted to not go there, you shouldn't have characterized my argument in a false way. And when your mistake was pointed out, you should have acknowledged the point. Go ahead. Avoid the tedium of responding. It will avoid me the unpleasantness of further dishonest evasion on your part. Meanwhile the facts remain these. From 1990 through 2011, Microsoft was continually being sued by or under consent decree in the USA for antitrust violations. From 1993 through 2013, the same was true in the EU. This is in addition to a long list of lawsuits from companies that their behavior harmed. All evidence from external behavior and internal emails in court says that their attitude did not change until 2008. This is not a counterfactual argument. And it provides good reason to believe that the 1998 publicity of having Bill Gates in court did not deter Microsoft from further antitrust actions.
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou really want an unpleasant argument, don't you? Maybe someone else here will give you one. Have a nice day.
- edgyquant 3y agoThey did not falsely characterize your argument. They are correct that it hinges on knowing the future when no one could do.