John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


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'm not surprised you have so much trouble with judgment,
considering how you struggle with using ordinary words in ordinary
contexts. That paragraph is a good illustration. You even question
the meaning of words in your own usage.

I'm not surprised you continue to invent nonsense as it seems to be your
specialty.


Judges don't have that problem.

No, what they have a problem with is being clueless about software.


An operating system should not have applications as it's components
if you want to promote competition among software developers.

What I want to 'promote' is a good product, not some anti-business crusade.

And if
you pretend to not know the difference between an operating system
and an application, you are just a liar. There is a gray area but
it's not that difficult to generally separate an operating system
from applications.

Which demonstrates you're almost as clueless as the judges are.

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

Wrong, as usual.


Silly, as usual.

Yes, you were, but I decided to keep it simple with just plain wrong.

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


You are a Microsoft defender troll wearing very big blinders.

No, I'm a defender of facts and rational thought.


with the government
simultaneously condemning Microsoft for being, as you call it, a
'monopoly', yet 'protecting' them.


Our justice system is getting hundreds of millions of dollars a year
from Microsoft.

Then it's nice to see they're making a profit for a change.