Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

John Doe wrote:

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:

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.



Judges don't have that problem.



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




You would have to be silly (as usual) to imagine that judges have
to know everything about every subject they judge.



I didn't say a thing about needing to "know everything." Or can't
you grasp the vast gulf between clueless and omniscience?




As easily as you can grasp the the difference between "clueless" and
"knowing something".



Your previous post proves otherwise.

But in fact some of
them are very insightful about the software business.



LOL

Well, if there are they're doing bang up job of hiding it.




Not if you pay close attention.



If you don't know any more about software than the judge does then it
might appear that way.

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,




The way we do that in a civilized market based economy is to
foster competition.



Courts and Judges dictating product content isn't a free market.




It happens all the time in a free market.



Non sequitur. It is, by definition, not a free market when courts and
judges dictate product content. The seller is not able to offer the
product he otherwise would and the buyer has that choice removed from
consideration. Rather than 'free' the market is contorted to conform
to the court's opinion of what it 'should be'.

not some anti-business crusade.




You sound like a Libertarian zealot.



Only to anti-business fanatics.




To someone who believes in a rule-based society.



Hitler also believed in "a rule-based society."

The question is, and always has been, who should make the rules and
what should the rules be? But to say rules are right simply because
they exist is a fool's argument.

Clearly you believe that businesses should not have to play by rules
or the rules should not be enforced by the government because the
government can't do anything right.



You clearly haven't a clue.

Sounds like a Libertarian zealot to me.



Since it's an invention of your own making it'll sound like whatever
you want.

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.




Maybe more so (in your head). Having been a big fan of the big
antitrust trial, for years I paid close attention and was
impressed by the judges' ability to understand and weigh the
facts.



I'm sure you were, when things came out the way you wanted. And
you then hated it when things didn't. That's not a 'guess' on my
part, it's taken straight from your assessment.




It's a wild guess. I think the final outcome to date was wrong. The
idea that I hated it exists only in your imagination. The appellate
court judges had plenty of insight and not all of the district
court's judgment was correct (in my opinion).



You just proved it wasn't a 'wild guess', as I had already explained.

They don't
have to know how to write programs, their main concern is the
software publishing business.



Since a significant part of the decision process was evaluating
what should, or should not, be a part of the O.S., among other
things, your claim is pure nonsense.




Speaking of nonsense. That was part of the proposed remedy, not part
of the trial, and that was done by the prosecution.



There's 'justice' for you: a remedy that springeth forth from no "part
of the trial" and the court's opinion "done by the prosecution."

Your opening was right on; you're speaking nonsense.

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.




So you're not willing to admit that you are a Libertarian who
thinks that everything government does is wrong (unless it agrees
with your opinion).



I'm never going to respond to any of your contrived nonsense.




You certainly contrive a lot of nonsense while defending Microsoft.



Declining to discuss the case with you is not a defense of anyone.

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.




When are you going to defend the fact that Microsoft Windows is a
monopoly?


I've already explained why I am not going to discuss it with you.




Some silly notion about software being too complicated for anyone to
tell the difference between an operating system and applications.



Not even remotely close and I'm not going to go through it again.



Your arguments are truly those of a naive person. You'll change your
mind after you've been bitten on the ass a few times.


Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.