John Doe wrote:

David Maynard wrote:


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'.


What part don't you understand?

None.

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


All your insults don't explain anything about why you don't express
an opinion one way or another.

Of course it did.

My guess is that you are afraid to admit that you are blind to the
facts because you know most of your associates know better.

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,


That is a giant leap from arguing that the district court and the
appeals court both got wrong something both unanimously agreed on.

Only you could refer to the entire contents of that ruling in the singular.

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.


Are you saying that there is no way to tell the difference between
an operating system and applications?

I'm saying that whether there's a way or not the court sure as heck
wouldn't know nor is it their business, unless they're willing to take on
P/L responsibility.

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.


I use them both, but not interchangeably.

You make no distinction in your usage and place both in otherwise identical
sentences. That's interchangeably in my book.

That doesn't mean I either agree or disagree with any particular
final findings


Do you agree or disagree with the vast majority of technically
inclined computer users who know that Microsoft holds monopoly
power over the personal computer operating system market?

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.


How about the court deciding something that was self-evident to most
of us long ago (many Libertarians excluded).

The court made tons of statements that are anything but self-evident and
that you speak of it as a singular thing is an example of why I don't
discuss it with you.