John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


John Doe wrote:


...

IBM was competing with OS/2. And if they weren't then why the hell
did they keep trying to sell it?


The findings of fact explain what you need to know.

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

It's good reading.

I've already read it, stem to stern, and since you apparently don't have a
single independent thought about it there's nothing to 'discuss'.


Do you understand that Microsoft holds monopoly power over the
Intel-based personal computer operating system market?

That's irrelevant to giving discounts to your competition.


You're too scared to voice your opinion on the subject. That is
rather telling. If you acknowledge the obvious, what most of us knew
long before the big antitrust trial, that Microsoft holds monopoly
power, you might endanger your business status with Microsoft. If
you say Microsoft doesn't hold monopoly power, then you lump
yourself in with the few remaining zealots who defend Microsoft.
Otherwise, why won't you say one way or the other?

And what does it matter whether I "say one way or the other?"

But since it seems you're going to hound me for all of eternity I'll tell
you why I've declined in the past; because you are an irrational ideologue
about it who, regardless of the context, topic, time period, or anything
else, does little more than repeat over and over 'the court said so' and
paste links to it as if the court is omniscient and infallible in every
word and jot

Of course, for that to be true one would have to also believe that no
guilty person has ever been released nor any innocent person ever convicted
nor any injustice ever done, and that's where the court works best. It's
even more absurd to think the court is infallible in business law suits and
just plain nuts for the court to be making 'judgments' about what does, or
does not, constitute a 'proper' part of an O.S., what the features of an
O.S. 'should be', and software/product content in general. You can't even
get a room full of 'experts' to agree on it and the court ain't no
'expert'. Put simply, they got no clue.

And then there's the matter that you seem to think "holds monopoly power"
and "is a monopoly" are equivalent, since you use them interchangeably, and
they're not.

That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular final
findings but it is an example of why I do not take your link as 'gospel' of
anything, other than the court made a ruling and that's the text of it.

And since that is the entirety of your 'argument', for everything, there is
nothing to 'discuss'.