p_j wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


Again, only a comparison that describes why Apple got stomped by the
PC economy.

If you ask me, the reason Apple got stomped was the lack of a
capitalist system in America. MS doesn't even market that well. They
manipulate and litigate well. If they had real consequences for their
crimes, they probably wouldn't exist.

Uh huh. Now _who_ sued _who_ over user interface look and feel?

There have probably been hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits against
Microsoft. Do you have a point?

Given a more capitalist legal system, Microsoft probably wouldn't exist.

I see. So they successfully defend themselves against attacks by litigation
and that makes them bad guys. That makes perfect sense if you believe that
the way to success is to use the legal system to destroy your competition.
Is that what you believe?

MS made one very good business decision. The sold to IBM at the price
IBM
wanted to pay. Once that deal was done they'd have had to screw up
pretty bad to avoid becoming the predominant OS vendor for personal
computers.

They sold something they didn't own.

What did they sell that they didn't own?

How about that? Maybe you think all
the other lawsuits against Microsoft were without merit, but many very
conservative judges disagree.

You can find "many conservative judges" that disagree with just about
anything for certain values of "conservative". But that is beside the
point. Microsoft in general does not try to litigate their competition to
death.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)