> Try proving in court that they are doing it deliberately to destroy a
> competitor. Where is the line between "get more customers" and "destroy
> competitors".
>
Let's see - they are paying thousands of dollars to programmers to write
advanced software that they are giving away for -- ummm...how much again? $0.
Sounds like it fits the "unreasonably low" clause to me.
> Everyday I see retailers selling things at or below cost to them for a
> limited time, to attract more customers.
>
Below cost? Paying people to take your product (hardware for servers, massive
advertising, etc...) goes beyond having a low price. Customers, by
definition, are people who pay you for services. People you pay are called
employees.
> Why can't MS give away MSIE in the hopes of getting more people on NT using
> IIS? MS has *openly* stated that they are trying to steal NS's marketshare.
> Note the government isn't pouncing - why? Because it is ok for MS to steal
> NS's marketshare. That is competition.
>
If they are not asking for money in return, they are not gaining any
marketshares. They are trying to forge a monopoly so that in the future they
can force people to pay them for what they are willing to offer. Windows is
the perfect example. Not much of an option in OSes for home users these days.
Netscape is choosing to support OS/2, whereas Microsoft is also
supporting...welll..ummm...
> Giving away freebies or selling at insanely low prices to get customers
> in the door is a time honored tradition. It would be a very hard fight in
> court to prove it was deliberately to destroy competition.
>
> I can see the argument go like this:
> Ind. ISP: The RBOC ISP is deliberately trying to destroy us?
> RBOX ISP: We're just doing everythign we can to build our customer base. It
> is normal to take a loss for a while until you build a revenue base. If we're
> hurting the Ind. ISP, sorry, that's free market competition. They'll just
> have to compete more aggressively.
> Ind. ISP: we can't we don't have the backing you do.
> RBOX ISP: Sorry, that's survivial of the fittest in the market. If you don't
> have the reserves to make it through hard times, that isn't our fault.
>
Actually, that was the way things used to be, but the antitrust laws and such
were put into place to encourage new businesses and assist them in competing
with unreasonably large corporations (ie, anti-monopoly laws). They were
created for this very reason.
> Why do ISPs thing the government is going to tell the RBOC ISPs and other
> big players to play nice and not stomp the small guys to get market share?
>
Large ISPs are not my main concern. That is fair competition (for the most
part). But the phone co's is a different issue. We have to purchase our
services from them. This makes the situation a little different...
Oh well, bound to get ugly no matter what we do...
Technical Support - Applied InterNet Solutions
- Jeremy T. Elston - System Engineer
(TechSupport@Greenwood.net)
"Professionalism is a way of life, not a part-time job."