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

[Declan McCullagh]

One problem with Phill's analysis is that the L-M work stands on
its own, independent from the, well, Independent Institute.

Criticizing the group does not score points against the L-M work.

-Declan


On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:20:41AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> > 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
>