"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: Section 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person or firm to "monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. ยง 2. This language operates to limit the means by which a firm may lawfully either acquire or perpetuate monopoly power. Specifically, a firm violates sec. 2 if it attains or preserves monopoly power through anticompetitive acts. The threshold element of a sec 2 monopolization offense being "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market... David Schwartz, I have a direct question for you: are you on Microsoft's payroll? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
