David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:
John Doe wrote:
David Maynard nospam private.net 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?
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.
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.
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.
Are you trying to answer that question?
Do you know the difference between the operating system and
applications?
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.
You are full of it.
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.
It's a simple question.
Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft holds monopoly power over
the personal computer operating system market?
Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!news.glorb.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.repair,alt. comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: The truth about OS/2!!! [ Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?]
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:37:29 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11mj8gprjccted2 corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: v429f.441$p37.342 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com Yj29f.33575$Bf7.32821 tornado.texas.rr.com qF59f.482$p37.367 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com iM69f.33654$Bf7.13203 tornado.texas.rr.com fa99f.528$p37.148 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com dxb9f.36934$Bf7.35070 tornado.texas.rr.com lNd9f.552$p37.38 newssvr17.news.prodigy.com oWe9f.40054$Bf7.37679 tornado.texas.rr.com 360bm1li8v9spuh8uhv95dhi25qe0jad4v 4ax.com 11mbajursouao13 corp.supernews.com 26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m 4ax.com 11mdkabmj4vef5f corp.supernews.com Xns97012E0521CE5follydom 207.115.17.102 11mfu9hnkt97qd3 corp.supernews.com Xns9701BC3134EBBfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mg4ua6p3i47ca corp.supernews.com Xns9701C6F44DDAfollydom 207.115.17.102 11mgg8hrge7dq4d corp.supernews.com Xns970282479AA5Cfollydom 207.115.17.102 11miobbo5ut4362 corp.supernews.com Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102
In-Reply-To: Xns9702E6342B453follydom 207.115.17.102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 125
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com sci.electronics.basics:225918 sci.electronics.repair:427659 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:448973