🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:07:59 -0700, in
<4c4342f4$0$22140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 17/07/10 6:30 PM, John Higdon wrote:
>> In article<i1tfe1$qq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>   sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>>
>>> That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical"
>>> situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there
>>> is nobody to sue.
>>
>> I guess you missed the fact that the government spent years and millions
>> of dollars prosecuting an open and shut case involving unfair marketing
>> practices and ended up with the most milquetoast verdict of its kind in
>> history.
>
>Hmm, that all must have happened in an alternate universe, because the 
>case against Microsoft was certainly not an open and shut case, and the 
>court of appeals overturned the ridiculous rulings of Jackson, who 
>routinely violated the code of conduct for judges.
>
>The central issue of the case, that bundling a browser with the OS was 
>deemed absurd by even other OS companies that were doing the exact same 
>thing.
>
>Microsoft was never found to have engaged in monopolistic behavior, nor, 
>by any definition of the word, does it qualify as a monopoly. ...

Wrong again:

On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of United
States v. Microsoft, calling the company an "abusive monopoly"; it
settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001.

In March 2004 the European Union brought antitrust legal action against
the company, citing it abused its dominance with the Windows OS,
resulting in a judgment of �497 million ($613 million) and other relief.

-- 
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, 
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin