25 Apr
2003
25 Apr
'03
2:55 p.m.
Hello Vassilis,
This is your personal opinion and I respect it. It
does not, however,
change the *fact* that Micro$oft was found guilty of breaking the
anti-trust law. No logical argument can dispute that, since it is a
fact; Micro$oft exhausted the appeal process, so unless the law is
changed, or Micro$oft is pardoned, they remain guilty. Maybe the
anti-trust laws are wrong, or unfair, however Micro$oft is now legally
considered to have been a monopoly and to have leveraged their status
to gain unfair advantage over their competitors.
I'm not saying Microsoft didn't have a monopoly on the OS market. I myself
was under a bit of a need to go with Microsoft OS products, because when I
needed to last upgrade my system, I couldn't easily have afforded a Macintosh
computer new enough to perform at a level I would have found satisfactory. I
also couldn't easily have afforded the applications programs I would have had
to purchase to change over to that platform. I didn't easily have the time
available
to become as familiar with the unix / linux OS to the degree that would
have substituted
for my familiarity with Microsoft products, and a whole set of apps for the
unix
platform either. But even though not comfortably done, those were still
available
options. But for that matter, it might have been that I didn't even need to
even be
using a computer at all. But if not, I would have had to totally
restructure my life
because it's current structure is based on the use of a computer, not only for
recreation, but to make a living. Microsoft products work pretty well for me,
though by the time I've added all the third party apps, it is certainly not
flawless.
I wouldn't want to be running a mission critical application, such as a reactor
plant control system, on it. But thankfully there are other more stable
OS's better
suited to such a task.
I was just trying to draw a similarity between Microsoft's position in the
OS market
to eBays position in the online auction market, as I put forth the question
of whether
or not eBay has a monopoly in the online auction market for the private
individual.
But here's a couple of links for all to enjoy ...
As I was looking into what Marvin had told us about, I ran across this
which was
somewhat humorous ...
WHAT IF AIRLINES WERE LIKE OPERATING SYSTEMS?
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/dosprompt
And for all eBay users, here is the Auction Guild's link ...
http://www.auctionguild.com/
Best Regards
At 09:41 PM 4/25/03 -0400, you wrote:
In cctalk digest, Vol 1 #569,
Mail List <mail.list(a)analog-and-digital-solutions.com> wrote:
This is your personal opinion and I respect it. It does not, however,
change the *fact* that Micro$oft was found guilty of breaking the
anti-trust law. No logical argument can dispute that, since it is a
fact; Micro$oft exhausted the appeal process, so unless the law is
changed, or Micro$oft is pardoned, they remain guilty. Maybe the
anti-trust laws are wrong, or unfair, however Micro$oft is now legally
considered to have been a monopoly and to have leveraged their status
to gain unfair advantage over their competitors.
**vp
Doc
Shipley <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> wrote:
MS was charged with exerting undue influence - active coercion - on
their customers, using that market share as leverage.
No one ever had to buy Microsoft products. They always could have
gone with the Macintosh platform, or a Unix system.