> practices. Btw, for Max and others who seemed to have missed the
> distinction, it is various *monopolistic* practices which are illegal, not
> actually being a monopoly.
Not sure why you think I missed that distinction... I never said that being a monopoly was illegal.
However, the distinction is a fine one. Microsoft *are*, in effect, being prosecuted for being a monopoly. Their practices are no different from others in the industry. They are dragged into the courts simply because they are "too big" and so, apparently, at some point these common practices (bundling, offering incentives to carry your product, etc.) became illegal. There's no clear legal boundary to tell you when your company becomes too big and must tie its own hands in competing. So much for the rule of law.
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies President, Extropy Institute: