From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 01 2000 - 13:54:18 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: Martin Ling <martin@nodezero.org.uk>
> >
> >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.
snip
> Apple, for instance, not only wanted a software monopoly, they wanted a
> hardware monopoly too. They wanted every PC user to use the Apple OS *and*
> they wanted to be the *only* company manufacturing the PC's to run the OS.
> Apple was so confidence in their dominance in the PC space that they didn't
> have the foresight to license the technology to other manufacturers. They
> wanted to keep it all to themselves. Yet, while Gates is vilified, Jobs is
> canonized as some sort of saint. The reason for this is simply that Jobs
> was not nearly as successful in his businsess endeavors as Gates was.
> Gates' only sin was success.
The hilarious thing is the people who are most in favor of anti-trust action
tend to be Mac-addicts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:20 MST