First of all, I would like to point out to you that your childish name-calling is a perfect demonstration of the petty viciousness I have been describing.
Secondly, none of these cases have been about "illegal" actions by Microsoft. If you read the "Key Facts" pdf from the website of this case, you will not find the slightest mention of any of the crimes you are suggesting. These cases are simply the attempt (by those who cannot compete) to bring down the competition in a very sly and underhanded way. Yet, by some fatal twist of reason and logic, these underhanded cowards are seen to be crusaders of justice.
I would have to question your understanding of my comment if you are going to compare Microsoft to spammers. The connotations of that comparison are all wrong.
My point is that Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong and if no one can topple them from the top of the OS market then there must be a good reason for that: namely that consumers continue to choose Microsoft products over the competition.
Also, I can't say that I buy into the claim that Microsoft is the ONLY product line of which people know. But even supposing this was the case, it is not Microsoft's job to market someone else's product. The fact that another company cannot afford to compete with Microsoft is no reason to use these petty, vicious tactics in an attempt to cripple Microsoft and bring them down to the level of their competitors.
I find the viciousness involved in the Microsoft Anti-Trust cases to be a disturbing signal for the freedom of society. The computer industry and all of America was forged from industry and capitalism and one cannot remove these elements without suffering from the effects of introducing such a contradiction. Why should companies be punished for having the best product on the market? And if you truly believe that the successful should be punished, why not let consumers do this punishment themselves by switching to a different product? The answer is very simple: it would never happen. Consumers continue to use Microsoft products because it is in their best interest to do so. Crippling Microsoft to bring them down to the level of their competition is a disgusting and immoral solution. Do we infect the healthy with AIDS because we can't cure it? If you have a problem with Microsoft's domination then you should create a set of products that outperforms Microsoft's product line and convince consumers that this is the case. Can't get a consumer base this way? Then your products aren't good enough and that is certainly not Microsoft's problem.
Microsoft's domination should be taken as a sign of health for America. It means that capitalism (and therefore freedom) has not been crushed by these vicious attempts to bring the strong down the level of the weak in the name of "fairness" and "equality".
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I would like to point out to you that your childish name-calling is a perfect demonstration of the petty viciousness I have been describing.
Secondly, none of these cases have been about "illegal" actions by Microsoft. If you read the "Key Facts" pdf from the website of this case, you will not find the slightest mention of any of the crimes you are suggesting. These cases are simply the attempt (by those who cannot compete) to bring down the competition in a very sly and underhanded way. Yet, by some fatal twist of reason and logic, these underhanded cowards are seen to be crusaders of justice.
I would have to question your understanding of my comment if you are going to compare Microsoft to spammers. The connotations of that comparison are all wrong. My point is that Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong and if no one can topple them from the top of the OS market then there must be a good reason for that: namely that consumers continue to choose Microsoft products over the competition.
Also, I can't say that I buy into the claim that Microsoft is the ONLY product line of which people know. But even supposing this was the case, it is not Microsoft's job to market someone else's product. The fact that another company cannot afford to compete with Microsoft is no reason to use these petty, vicious tactics in an attempt to cripple Microsoft and bring them down to the level of their competitors.
I find the viciousness involved in the Microsoft Anti-Trust cases to be a disturbing signal for the freedom of society. The computer industry and all of America was forged from industry and capitalism and one cannot remove these elements without suffering from the effects of introducing such a contradiction. Why should companies be punished for having the best product on the market? And if you truly believe that the successful should be punished, why not let consumers do this punishment themselves by switching to a different product? The answer is very simple: it would never happen. Consumers continue to use Microsoft products because it is in their best interest to do so. Crippling Microsoft to bring them down to the level of their competition is a disgusting and immoral solution. Do we infect the healthy with AIDS because we can't cure it? If you have a problem with Microsoft's domination then you should create a set of products that outperforms Microsoft's product line and convince consumers that this is the case. Can't get a consumer base this way? Then your products aren't good enough and that is certainly not Microsoft's problem.
Microsoft's domination should be taken as a sign of health for America. It means that capitalism (and therefore freedom) has not been crushed by these vicious attempts to bring the strong down the level of the weak in the name of "fairness" and "equality".