Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts

[Mac Norton]

I've got a terminology gap here.  Somewhere along the line I seem
to have conflated "network effects" with the notion that the 
maraginal cost of any addition to a network will typically be
less then the value to the network of that addition.  (Yes, 
"typically" is important, to avoid lumpiness quibbles, such
as "a whole new server is a whole new server for one added 
user," but let's don't quibble.)

It sounds like what we're talking about here involves what 
I would have thought of more as "network externalities."

Education, please?
MacN
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Phill gets it halfway right, or put another way is halfway wrong.
> 
> The question is not whether network effects exist or not; clearly they
> do in some form. Better questions include whether they have produced
> inferior results than "someone" desires, how strong they are, and whether
> state intervention is a good idea because of their alleged ill effects.
>