"Paul Rubin" <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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: 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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
