>To some extent, Microsoft's dominance derives from their illegal and unlawful
>theft of intellectual property. Even if intellectual property should be
>abolished, as Lee advocates, Microsoft's competitors couldn't use Microsoft's
>intellectual property,
Huh? Can you explain this last part? If Int.Prop. was abolished, what
would MS's Int.Prop. *be*, and why couldn't someone else use it??
>and Microsoft was either stealing or using coercion so
What is "stealing," if there is no property involved?
>that only it had free access to intellectual property
What would it mean to have free access to something that was abolished?
>. Unlawful, any way you
>look at it.
Um, what laws are you assuming I'm looking at it through?
--Steve
--
sw@tiac.net Steve Witham www.tiac.net/users/sw under deconstruction
"...when activated, it pops a message off the bag
and recurs with the tail of the bag."
--Vijay Saraswat and Patrick Lincoln