[lug] Monopoly huh...

[Calvin Dodge]

"Jeffrey B. Siegal" wrote:
> 
> The judge has *not* found that Microsoft should be punished for having
> monopoly power.  *Having* monopoly power is not even against the law.  What is
> against the law is *abuse* of monopoly power to protect or extend a monopoly.
> Finding that Microsoft holds monopoly power is a necessary but not sufficient
> step toward finding a violation of antitrust law.

Yes, I know that.  I believe I _did_ say that Microsoft had done some nasty
things - I guess I failed to include the phrase "monopoly power", but I'm quite
aware of the people and businesses who feel they MUST upgrade their Windows OS
and applications because "everybody else will" (although we're sticking with
Win95 and Office 97 as long as I have something to say about it - or until
Linux becomes a viable desktop option for my employer).

I'm also aware of the way Microsoft abused this monopoly power (like charging
IBM a bunch more for Windows licenses because they _dared_ to bundle SmartSuite
(which they own) with their computers).

I'm pretty sure Microsoft IS guilty of illegal activites, and should be
punished for it.

All I was trying to say was "I think it's silly to subdivide computers into
Motorola and Intel desktops to make Microsoft's domination look even bigger
than it really is".

Sigh ...

Calvin

-- 
"Hey feller!
I bet you're still living in your parents' cellar
Downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar
And posting 'me too!' like some brain-dead AOLer"

- "It's All About The Pentiums"