Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[T Beck]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <davids at webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb at oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> > news:33sj23-6om.ln1 at news.it.uc3m.es...
>
> >> Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
> >> started.
[snip]
> O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
> initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.


So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM.  Which is what made them a
monopoly.  MS didn't have a monopoly before IBM, so what kind of draw
did they have to make IBM sign the paper, except that they were
offering something that IBM wanted, and IBM was willing to pay that
much for it?  Nobody made IBM sign that deal, IBM thought that it
worked out OK for both parties.  As for later deals with OEM
manufacturers, if it's OK for MS to make that deal with IBM, then why
does it suddenly become an "abuse of their power" if they're using the
same business model?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MS has done plenty of shady stuff, and I'm
sure most every other sucessful company has.  Just because we got a
lawsuit to watch for MS doesn't mean other companies like Sony or IBM
haven't done similar stuff we've never heard of.  I'm just trying to
figure out how offering their contract changed from OK to not OK, based
purely on how well they were doing...

--T Beck