Can anyone explain the case IBM had against MS without a lot of anti-MS fanaticism or legal jargon? In fact, I'm a little fuzzy on where the line lies that divides good and effective business practices from evil monopolistic ones. This has been going on so long that it's difficult to figure out why exactly the anti-trust suites begain in the first place. And even though I don't care for their software, I think it would be only fair to understand why MS is being charged for what, in many cases, seems like promotion of their own product, which is just business. Can anyone explain, sans flamethrower, why MS is being hit with these suites?
-- age and wisdom overcome youth and treachary
Can anyone explain the case IBM had against MS without a lot of anti-MS fanaticism or legal jargon? In fact, I'm a little fuzzy on where the line lies that divides good and effective business practices from evil monopolistic ones. This has been going on so long that it's difficult to figure out why exactly the anti-trust suites begain in the first place. And even though I don't care for their software, I think it would be only fair to understand why MS is being charged for what, in many cases, seems like promotion of their own product, which is just business. Can anyone explain, sans flamethrower, why MS is being hit with these suites?
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone explain the case IBM had against MS without a lot of anti-MS fanaticism or legal jargon? In fact, I'm a little fuzzy on where the line lies that divides good and effective business practices from evil monopolistic ones. This has been going on so long that it's difficult to figure out why exactly the anti-trust suites begain in the first place. And even though I don't care for their software, I think it would be only fair to understand why MS is being charged for what, in many cases, seems like promotion of their own product, which is just business. Can anyone explain, sans flamethrower, why MS is being hit with these suites? -- age and wisdom overcome youth and treachary
Can anyone explain the case IBM had against MS without a lot of anti-MS fanaticism or legal jargon? In fact, I'm a little fuzzy on where the line lies that divides good and effective business practices from evil monopolistic ones. This has been going on so long that it's difficult to figure out why exactly the anti-trust suites begain in the first place. And even though I don't care for their software, I think it would be only fair to understand why MS is being charged for what, in many cases, seems like promotion of their own product, which is just business. Can anyone explain, sans flamethrower, why MS is being hit with these suites?