Comment

• Date: 01 March 1997
• Published date: 01 March 1997
• Author: Alannah Orrison
• DOI: 10.1177/0003603X9704200105
• Subject Matter: Symposium: Economics of Antitrust Enforcement

The Antitrust Bulletin/Spring 1997

Comment

BY ALANNAH ORRISON*

45

Stephan

Levy's

excellent work makes significant strides toward

understanding the nature and import

of

afascinating phenomenon,

and deserves very careful consideration by all involved with what

may (or may not) be vaporware.

First, amatter of definition. The crux

of

the question is what

is meant by "vaporware." Stephan states that

"[a]t

best, vaporware

is an honest product announcement that proves inaccurate ex post.

At

worst,

it

includes

announcements

that

are

knowingly

and

intentionally false. . . ." Since antitrust concerns must consider

whether

vaporware

production

is a

strategy,

focus

should

be

uniquely

on

intent-and,

in fact, most

of

Stephan's

discussion

relates to that. Inaccurate ex

post

announcements are not the issue.

Still, in his article the one term covers both intentional and unin-

tentional

events,

and

this leads to

confusion.

In

what

follows,

"vaporware" will mean the intentionally produced phenomenon,

and the result of innovating firms' genuine prediction error will

be referred to as "fumbleware." Stephan reaches the conclusion

that vaporware will not be produced. Since antitrust law requires

not only that vaporware increase market power, but also that it be

*Professor of Economics, Saddleback College, Mission Viejo, CA.

© 1997by Federal Legal Publications. Inc.