Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Paul Rubin]

"David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:
>     Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they 
> first acquired it?

It's utterly irrelevant whether it was illegal when they acquired it.
The law is against acquiring OR MAINTAINING a monopoly by
anticompetitive means.   That's what MS was convicted of.

>     No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or 
> indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's 
> perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly 
> does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of 
> what someone calls a market.

The Sherman Act has nothing to do with acquiring 51% of a market.

> I am not the only person with this view.
> http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945999623?v=glance
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
> http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=31
> http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=344&org_name=NTUF

I could care less what the self-serving libertarian lunatic fringe thinks.