Links for RE: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")

Matthew Gaylor freematt at coil.com
Sat Mar 3 18:46:43 PST 2001


For your convenience, here again are a few links that might be of 
interest to you:

http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/BriefWLMS.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/TIR32_mck_shug.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/content/events/microsoft_rt_transcript.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/content/events/tech_innovat_rt_transcript.html

http://www.independent.org/tii/WorkingPapers/Code.html

Also as David Theroux <DTheroux at independent.org>, noted, Liebowitz 
and Margolis's scholarly articles can be found in the Journal of 
Economic Perspectives; Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations; 
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology; Journal of Law and Economics; 
New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law; Encyclopedia of Law 
and Economics; and elsewhere, or more conveniently in their seminal 
book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT:

http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_WLMS.html

In addition, more popular articles by them have appeared in Upside, 
Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco 
Chronicle, Reason, etc.  Some of these are available on The 
Independent Institute's web site at the following:

http://www.independent.org/archive/technology.html

http://www.independent.org/archive/antitrust.html

So, again, the arguments are in these links. Once you have read them, 
please let David Theroux <DTheroux at independent.org> know how and why 
you differ.

Incidentally, The Independent Institute's advisory board 
(http://www.independent.org/tii/tii_info/advisors.html) has included 
Nobel Laureates in economics as well as many who are on the short 
list for such a Prize.

By the way, the 240 economists who signed The Independent Institute's 
Open Letter on Antitrust Protectionism 
(http://www.independent.org/tii/news/open_letter.html ) did not "deny 
the existence of network effects," and if you would simply read the 
letter itself, you would see this.  In fact, the words, "network 
effects," do not even appear in the Open Letter!  Furthermore, the 
Open Letter was not only about the Microsoft case, but as is stated, 
it was about "Headline-grabbing cases against Microsoft, Intel, Cisco 
Systems, Visa and MasterCard, along with a flurry of merger 
investigations now under way." The issue is about "path dependence" 
theory, not "network effects!"

Regards,  Matt-


**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list