| Bill Jonas on Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:55:27 -0500 |
|
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:24:31PM -0500, Jon Galt wrote: > You have not described any coercive act by anybody. If your choices are "play my way" or "go out of business", then that's not coercive? Even if you don't go out of business, can you imagine how badly you (as a member of the Board) would be slaughtered by the shareholders in such a situation? > If two people and/or companies who might do business are not BOTH willing, > then that particular business will not be conducted. Where is the > coercion in any of this? "He Who Controls the Bootloader"... http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827_hacker.html If Microsoft had even an 80% market share, the monopoly charges might not have stuck. However, they have something like a 95% share. ("Your honor, it is true that Bell telephone has a 95% market share. However, there are a few competing local phone companies...") Look, I'm not saying that they should be broken up. I haven't thought deeply enough about what an appropriate penalty might be, since I (thankfully) don't have to make that decision. All I'm saying is that I agree with the finding of fact that states that they have a monopolistic position in the market for desktop computer operating systems. You disagree. That's fine. Others agree with me, and there are probably others who agree with you. That's also fine. I suggest that unless we have some new ground to cover, or if we have a snowball's chance of changing each other's minds (doubtful), that this not be further drawn out on the list. -- Bill Jonas * bill@billjonas.com * http://www.billjonas.com/ Developer/SysAdmin for hire! See http://www.billjonas.com/resume.html Attachment:
pgpmV5B1KqGdk.pgp
|
|