Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

> 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