> > As one who deeply respects Gates and Microsoft, I want MS to resume as it
> > has for the last decade: innovative, growing and successful; working within
> > a system which has none of those facets makes it hard for me to see how it
> > can be done.
>
> I strongly advise you to read Judge Jackson's original Findings of Fact
> in the Microsoft case, at:
> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-conclusions.html
> Microsoft's practices have sought to establish and maintain a monopoly
> in the operating system field. They have then used the leverage this has
> given them to establish strongholds in other areas. In all of these,
> they have ignored standards compliance, acted uncompetetively to the
> point of illegality and in general been directly in the way of free and
> open control of technological development - something I know people on
> this list support.
Speak for yourself. I think we all know Microsoft has done these
things--I certainly do. My reactions is "so what's your point?"
Sure, Microsoft has bent every rule in the book, but that's
exactly Shaun's point: why does it continue to support a system
with such silly rules that it has to stretch to build an honest
monopoly? Why support a system that makes it more difficult than
it naturally is to subvert public standards for fun and profit?
Unlike Shaun, I would never have even used the word "innovative"
since I know Microsoft has been anything but, but I still agree
with his point. Why do we tolerate a system that foces people to
play "fair" where that definition is ludicrous?
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:58 MDT