John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


Gary H wrote:


Ah well it's criticism based on many writings and rulings (I
suppose) by "experts". He's ended up in court in the US
(antitrust, guilty) and in Europe (antitrust, guilty) fined 32
million by South Korea's FTC (Fair Trade Commission, guilty)

Courts and Judges are positively clueless about the software world
and to call them 'experts' is absurd.


And apparently David Maynard is clueless about how justice works.
Judges are good at judging and rely on expert witnesses.

I suppose you missed the fact that there are always 'expert witnesses' on
both sides of any case with directly opposing 'opinions' and in something
as technically complex as an O.S. there is no way for someone clueless
about software to even grasp the arguments, much less 'judge' which one is
the better, assuming there is such a thing as 'better' when it comes to
'opinions' on what an O.S. should, or should not, have as it's components
and how it 'should' be structured.


I smell a libertarian who believes everything the government does is
wrong (unless it agrees with his opinion).

Wrong, as usual.

But in fact if it weren't for our government every day deciding in
Microsoft's favor and using our police with guns to physically
inforce Microsoft's will, Microsoft would fall apart like a playing
card house. Put that in your Microsoft defending libertarian fantasy
land.

Nice piece of schizoid logic you got there with the government
simultaneously condemning Microsoft for being, as you call it, a
'monopoly', yet 'protecting' them.