Hi,
>
> I'm actualy worried about what restrictions may be placed on microsoft..
> computer technology is still a very new field..
It's been around since the 1930s actually. PCs are now 18 years old, too.
> placing restrictions on it
> now is a bad thing..
Actually, what innovate new technologies is Microsoft coming up with,
honestly? Also, I suspect it's their illegal business practices that will
be restricted, not their ability to develop new technologies and market
them.
> and could potentialy harm future advancements if
> companys are affraid to go into certain areas or to become too
> sucessful....
Microsoft isn't being attacked for being successful. They are being
attacked for using illegal tactics to destroy their competition, like
writing contracts that forced hardware manufacturers to pay for Microsoft
licenses regardless of whether or not they put *any* MS products on the
computers in question, and using their monopoly power to make it impossible
for any company that did not agree to stay in business.
>
> I don't think microsoft should be punnished for being a sucessful
> company... even if it blow up a few compeditors...
There are laws about how you can compete. Microsoft fragrantly violates
them left and right.
> >
> > Also, as a former OS/2 loyalist, considering what Microsoft did to my
former
> > favorite OS, and *how* they did it, this doesn't bother me at all. It
can't
> > be hurting Caldera's case either, can it?
>
> I'm confused.. what did microsoft DO to OS/2?
Microsoft refused to license Windows '95 (or future versions of NT) to IBM
unless IBM withdrew OS/2 from the market. IBM refused, and at the last
hour, under pressure from their PC Company division, agreed to a compromise:
they would no longer market OS/2. At the time Warp version 3 was making
*major* gains, and had sold about 10 million retail copies. IBM already had
a preload agreement with Tandy (which they had to pull out of), and was
negotiating them with other manufacturers. However, they were not willing
to risk not being able to offer Windows.
This all came out of the testimony in the case.
>
> Before flamming me to hard.. I'm very heavy user of linux (it's pretty
> much my exclusive OS at home and my primary workstation at work).. I just
> don't belive in regulatory actions.. esp in the technology area..
I don't believe in letting unscrupulous companies milk the consumer. I *do*
believe government intervention is necessary in this case.
> regulations tend to backfire... making the percived problems worse....
Really? Would you like to go back to the days of the robber barons and
monopolies before current anti-trust laws were enacted? Read a little
history on the subject. The laws exist for good reason. The only question
that remains is *which* laws Microsoft violated, and how they should be
punished for violating them. Microsoft will not be put out of business, and
with competition they will be forced to bring higher quality products to
market.
Just my .02
-Caity
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
