Peter T. Breuer wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> 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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
