Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
True, and I have been vindicated by recent events, since even divine power has proven unable to breakup Microsoft - although to be fair to the DoJ it must be pointed out that he felt the need to try. It is pretty wierd that the crank tank thinks that people who disagree with their reasoning must disagree with their conclusion, or for that matter that people who agree with their conclusion must agree with their whacky theories. The 'hundreds' of economists cited as backing the whacky theory turn out to have signed up for an open letter to support Microsoft, not quite the same thing at all. Now it is entirely true that I have not examined the specific evidence cited in the book, merely the tendentious press release being circulated. However, the press release makes the claims and the only evidence supplied is on the basis of the book. This sounds to me like reference to spurious authority. Particularly since the 'independent institute' that publishes the book was paid $100,000 by Microsoft in a transaction that most certainly did not influence a single pardon. Coupled with the bogus claim that 250 economists also deny the existence of network effects that turns out to be 250 economists support Microsoft, it seems fair to say that the press release does not cross the threshold of credibility, even if the claim being made was not so far reaching and revisionist. The behavior of the director of the institute only further confirms the impression. Phill