🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:03:34, "Larry Elmore" 
<ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:

�>That's not really true. It takes a lot of doing to wind up
�>in court. Before that happens there is all kinds of fact
�>finding and negotiations between the DOJ and the company in
�>question. Most of the time they work together to come to an
�>understanding. It's only when a company digs in its heels
�>and takes a (quoting Steve Ballmer), "To hell with Janet
�>Reno," attitude that they wind up in court. It really is a
�>last resort action on the part of the DOJ.

�That's true, but doesn't the situation bother you? Just because the DOJ
�hasn't exploited its potential in this area too egregiously doesn't mean
�that it can't or won't in the future.

And just because the sky hasn't fallen, doesn't mean that it
can't or won't in the future. Better run and tell the king.


�>�Sun and Netscape are no angels of the business world, either...

�>They may or may not be angels - that is beside the point.
�>Abuse of power to dictate to the entire market is the point.
�>Having the power to `cut off the air supply' of *anyone* who
�>threatens their goal of 100% mindshare (mind domination, is
�>more like it), is the point. Stifling innovation and new
�>technologies in order to protect a monopoly position, is the
�>point.

�I'm not aware of any outstanding cases where Microsoft has done that.

Ah - I hadn't realized till now that your purpose here was 
to stooge for MS. No point in going on with this. Sorry for 
wasting my time.




________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it. 
rj friedman          Team ABW              
Taipei, Taiwan       rjf@yyycomasia.com 

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________