Paul Rubin wrote:
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you
>> are a monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination
>> that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of
>> the "market". That's a different can of worms for a different part
>> of this thread.
> The trial court determined and two different appeals courts upheld
> that MS had an illegal monopoly. I think they have more experience
> and knowledge of these things than you do. MS's illegal monopoly
> is an established legal fact regardless of your irrelevant opinion.
The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a
finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been
within the trial court's discretion. They could just as easily have found
that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and other operating systems competed with Windows.
To call it an "established legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
