"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:36:00 GMT

I didn't have to wait for the system to tell me that Microsoft
owns personal computer software.

Me neither. Yes Microsoft does develop personal computer software.
But so does thousands of other companies as well. So this rules out
Microsoft as a monopoly.

I provided that proof for your benefit.

Your proof is from known liars who hides the truth under the
umbrella of nation security and many other things.

Obviously you have some very strange views about Microsoft's
dominance.

I have no strange views about Microsoft's dominance. I freely admit
they have a huge following using their software. Although what the
*facts* don't show is how this dominance means that Microsoft has a
monopoly in the PC market.

That is ridiculous! How can that be? As they would had to have
complete control over the PC. This isn't the case at all. As
Microsoft's largest threat is probably Linux. So get that silly idea
out of your head, because it just isn't so. As there are
probably millions of PCs not running any MS product at all. And you
are totally ignoring this *fact*. Why is that?

Is it because the lying system told you so? Thus are you trying us
to believe known liars? Why? I easily shown you how ridiculous
calling Microsoft a monopoly sounds by using the known *facts*.
Don't follow others in their ignorance, think for yourself.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0




"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message news:Xns9701C504D5F55follydom 207.115.17.102...
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:02:13 GMT

One year, Microsoft pumped $650 million into our judicial system.
That same system clearly settled that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the desktop operating system market.

From the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems."

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

"... we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

There ain't no doubt about it.

"BillW50" BillW50 aol.kom wrote:

Oh please! I had lost faith in the system when victims mostly gets
screwed and the accused gets off lightly. And that doesn't count
either. The real truth is the one with the most bucks usually wins.
Did anything ever change with Microsoft, no not really after the
ruling.

And even if you believe in the system, do you believe the judge and
jury is going to understand anything about geeks and lines of code?
One in a thousand might, but that is the bright side of things.

It is as plain as day to me, that Microsoft appears as a monopoly
because Microsoft's competitors are whinny cry baby morons! They
can't program their way out of a wet paper bag! And because they are
so bad, they blame not themselves, but because Microsoft did it to
them. Judges and juries like hearing this. But they are totally
clueless when it comes right down to Microsoft competitors are

nothing more than just plain old clueless idiots. And that makes
Microsoft guilty? I think not!

Case in point. The court had ruled that McDonalds was at fault
because hot coffee was hot. Yes the coffee was at 190 degrees like
hot coffee should be. But the stupid lady was too dumb to know that
hot coffee was hot. So McDonalds had to pay like 3.5 million dollars
to this dumb ass lady. Yes I'm sorry she was a dumb ass, but I am
not sorry enough for dumb asses to give them 3.5 million dollars or
whatever it was. Now because of this, McDonalds now has a warning
that hot coffee is hot. Are you getting any of this now, John?

Maybe to solve Microsoft's so-called monopoly problem, maybe MS
should add a warning that its competitors are nothing but morons.
Yes that's the ticket. grin

____________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0