[netcan]

Well, this is the problem with any sort of empirical answers to economics questions. That said, we see some strong signals here. If you agree with some or all of them, it is an indication:

- Both IBM & MS do not feel as intimidating today as they did at their peek. - Technology moved forward in ways that made their monopolies less important. - Innovation in competing products happened - Innovation within these companies happened. - There was fast paced borrowing of concepts from competing products - Prices decreased

Out of all of these, the first is IMO the important one. MS' position in 96 didn't guarantee its position in the future. Generations in technology are relatively fast and create opportunities to break monopolies. Even if it is bad (I agree that this is up for discussion), you can just wait it out.

Compare this to telephone lines or rail roads and it seems like software, even if it is a platform, is not in as much danger.