🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:19:26 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:24:41 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>As decided by our courts, Microsoft 
>>>>in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating 
>>>>system market.
>>>
>>>Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a 
>>>"competitive market."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No, it's not.
>
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract 
>them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's 
>already been dealt with)

"Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as
again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in
other discusssions.


>
>So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of 
>how they would behave in a competitive market?


It is relevant to my position that they would need add
features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't
have available.  By not having to compete, they don't have
to be feature-competitive.  It worked, it is even known how
to make it work again.  They certainly do NOT have any kind
of financial restrains keeping them from testing it.  Your
arguments about cost are simply invalid.  In FACT they could
now give away windows free and still afford to support it.
The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business"
because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a
monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations
because of it.