May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Floyd Rogers on 20 Oct 2009 14:54 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote > On 2009-10-20, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Brent wrote: >> >>>It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. There >>>continue to be other OS choices. >> >> I see you enjoy showing the world what an ignorant, simple-minded fool >> you are. How odd. >> Microsoft's lawyers must be totally incompetent, eh? They could have >> gotten those anti-trust cases *immediately* dismissed, by simply >> stating "There is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a Mac." >> Sheesh! > > LOL. it's nice that you can cut my posts way down and then substitute > your own nonsense so you have something to knock down. There have been > all sorts of choices other than microsoft. Brent is correct. Windows (and it's derivative OS's) have *never* been adjudged a monopoly, because there *are* other OS's available. Microsoft *was* judged (by the US and EU) as abusing it's market power (and "market power" has specific meaning under anti-trust law, but is not a synonym for "monopoly") by bundling IE and Media Player with Windows. It is clear (under US law) that a company *CAN* have a legal monopoly as long as it doesn't abuse it. All the redresses asked by DOJ and the EU were aimed at that abuse, not Microsoft's domination of the OS market. You can argue as much as you like, but by every legal and other definition, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in OS's. FloydR
From: Snit on 20 Oct 2009 14:59 Floyd Rogers stated in post rpOdnUWiyJ4dmkPXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)posted.palinacquisition on 10/20/09 11:54 AM: > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> On 2009-10-20, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Brent wrote: >>> >>>> It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. There >>>> continue to be other OS choices. >>> >>> I see you enjoy showing the world what an ignorant, simple-minded fool >>> you are. How odd. >>> Microsoft's lawyers must be totally incompetent, eh? They could have >>> gotten those anti-trust cases *immediately* dismissed, by simply >>> stating "There is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a Mac." >>> Sheesh! >> >> LOL. it's nice that you can cut my posts way down and then substitute >> your own nonsense so you have something to knock down. There have been >> all sorts of choices other than microsoft. > > Brent is correct. Windows (and it's derivative OS's) have *never* been > adjudged > a monopoly, because there *are* other OS's available. Microsoft *was* > judged (by the US and EU) as abusing it's market power (and "market power" > has > specific meaning under anti-trust law, but is not a synonym for "monopoly") > by bundling IE and Media Player with Windows. > > It is clear (under US law) that a company *CAN* have a legal monopoly > as long as it doesn't abuse it. All the redresses asked by DOJ and the EU > were aimed at that abuse, not Microsoft's domination of the OS market. > > You can argue as much as you like, but by every legal and other > definition, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in OS's. > > FloydR > > It does, however, have an effective monopoly. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE]
From: Ezekiel on 20 Oct 2009 15:06 "Snit" <usenet(a)gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:C7035687.4EFBF%usenet(a)gallopinginsanity.com... > Floyd Rogers stated in post > rpOdnUWiyJ4dmkPXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)posted.palinacquisition on 10/20/09 11:54 > AM: > >> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>> On 2009-10-20, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> Brent wrote: >>>> >>>>> It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. >>>>> There >>>>> continue to be other OS choices. >>>> >>>> I see you enjoy showing the world what an ignorant, simple-minded fool >>>> you are. How odd. >>>> Microsoft's lawyers must be totally incompetent, eh? They could have >>>> gotten those anti-trust cases *immediately* dismissed, by simply >>>> stating "There is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a Mac." >>>> Sheesh! >>> >>> LOL. it's nice that you can cut my posts way down and then substitute >>> your own nonsense so you have something to knock down. There have been >>> all sorts of choices other than microsoft. >> >> Brent is correct. Windows (and it's derivative OS's) have *never* been >> adjudged >> a monopoly, because there *are* other OS's available. Microsoft *was* >> judged (by the US and EU) as abusing it's market power (and "market >> power" >> has >> specific meaning under anti-trust law, but is not a synonym for >> "monopoly") >> by bundling IE and Media Player with Windows. >> >> It is clear (under US law) that a company *CAN* have a legal monopoly >> as long as it doesn't abuse it. All the redresses asked by DOJ and the >> EU >> were aimed at that abuse, not Microsoft's domination of the OS market. >> >> You can argue as much as you like, but by every legal and other >> definition, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in OS's. >> >> FloydR >> >> > It does, however, have an effective monopoly. Don't worry about the "advocates" - they have dozens of other excuses for why the general public ignores Linux. The have no solutions or answers - but plenty of excuses.
From: jim on 20 Oct 2009 15:19 Brent wrote: > > Cute trick with the followup. Government courts and a government > politically decided that MS was a monopoly... if true, so what? Such > things are decided on a political basis and have nothing to do with if > there is a real monopoly or not. Government grants monopolies, they are > the only ones that can create and sustain them. A free market is hostile > to monopolies which is why corporations partner with governments to have > monopolies. Yeah, so what if it is not a "Free Market"? Most people don't want a free market. And why should they? You may get the absolutely most cost efficient road system if it were built, maintained and operated by a free market but most people don't want to wait 20 years and countless lives lost while the marketplace sorts out who builds the best bridges and roads. The market place is the law of the jungle and that isn't how most people want to live. For the most part people are happy to have government regulations and have government supervision rather than let the market place establish standards for the bridges they are going to have to drive over. And sure these people are suckers who are brainwashed, but that is reality. It is better go work with that reality than cling to fantasy that has no possibility of ever becoming a reality. -jim
From: Snit on 20 Oct 2009 15:24
Ezekiel stated in post hbl1n8$r6c$1(a)news.eternal-september.org on 10/20/09 12:06 PM: .... >>>> LOL. it's nice that you can cut my posts way down and then substitute your >>>> own nonsense so you have something to knock down. There have been all sorts >>>> of choices other than microsoft. >>>> >>> Brent is correct. Windows (and it's derivative OS's) have *never* been >>> adjudged a monopoly, because there *are* other OS's available. Microsoft >>> *was* judged (by the US and EU) as abusing it's market power (and "market >>> power" has specific meaning under anti-trust law, but is not a synonym for >>> "monopoly") by bundling IE and Media Player with Windows. >>> >>> It is clear (under US law) that a company *CAN* have a legal monopoly as >>> long as it doesn't abuse it. All the redresses asked by DOJ and the EU were >>> aimed at that abuse, not Microsoft's domination of the OS market. >>> >>> You can argue as much as you like, but by every legal and other definition, >>> Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in OS's. >>> >>> FloydR >>> >>> >> It does, however, have an effective monopoly. >> > Don't worry about the "advocates" - they have dozens of other excuses for why > the general public ignores Linux. The have no solutions or answers - but > plenty of excuses. Oh, any excuse that can be found is used by many to run from the intrinsic problems of desktop Linux. No doubt. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE] |