Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7xvezi8ypy.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com...

> "David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:

>>     Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no 
>> court
>> ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to 
>> characterize
>> the monopoly itself as "illegal" is simply erroneous.

> Who is paying you to tell these ridiculous crap?  The monopoly is illegal
> if maintained by anticompetitive means regardless of how it was acquired.
> From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/conclusions-l.html:

    Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they 
first acquired it?

>   The threshold element of a  sec 2 monopolization offense being "the
>   possession of monopoly power in the relevant market...

    If that were true, how could a person ever legally acquire a monopoly, 
which is exactly what the courts held with respect to Microsoft?

> David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on
> Microsoft's payroll?

    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. 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

    DS