"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they > first acquired it?
It's utterly irrelevant whether it was illegal when they acquired it. The law is against acquiring OR MAINTAINING a monopoly by anticompetitive means. That's what MS was convicted of. > 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. The Sherman Act has nothing to do with acquiring 51% of 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 I could care less what the self-serving libertarian lunatic fringe thinks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
