Max More wrote:
> > 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.
Well, Max, its kinda like Vinge's _Conquest By Default_, isn't it??? Klein is trying to set up his own preisthood of 'Umpires', eh???