[QUOTE="cobrax25"] [QUOTE="StephenKing_1"]Last I checked, Windows wasn't the only OS available. MS has never had a monopoly, and have no means to prevent any company from creating their own Operating system, word processor, office utilities, etc. Monopolys only exist when they are government sanctioned.StephenKing_1
No you are absolutly wrong. Even a court ruling said they did. and yes, before the settlement, MS was infact preventing certain Companies from developing for Windows, as long as they also developed for another OS. Which made Developing for Apple, virtually impossible.Â
and Monopolies dont only exist under goverment sanctions.
Â
Boing, AT&T, and many othes were all at one point convicted of Violating Anti-Trust laws.
You mean the court ruling that was in effect a slap on the wrist? The courts say all kinds of stupid things that make no sense. Windows is owned/created by Microsoft. If they make it impossible for someone to develop for it, then so be it. It's their program. Nobody should step in and say what MS can and cannot allow on their own program. I don't believe Ipods can play wma files. Apple should be sued. Don't know about Boeing, but AT&T was a monopoly, and only because the government didn't allow competitors to build phone lines. Same with electric companies/power lines 100 years ago.Â
My point still stands. The whole idea of a Monopoly is stupid. If one company creates a product that "monopolizes" the market, then charges outrageous prices, what is to stop someone else from creating something similar and charging half the price? Nothing, and there goes your monopoly.Â
1) The court ruling was not a slap in the wrist. It would have forced MS to split its company into smaller parts and force each part to fairly compete in the field they specialize in. This would make it much harder for MS to abuse its power. This is why MS fought it so hard and was about ot appeal before conservatives took over and let MS off the hook.
2) You actually are saying that courts make no sense? I don't see you going to law school any time soon. But I'm sure you know the rules and the law better than the courts.
3) Clearly you have no idea what the issues are or what the laws are. Yet it doesn't stop you from forming an irrationally strong opinion on it. Interesting.
4) The problem isn't technically the monopoly. The problem is the temptation for every single corporation ever to abuse that monopoly's power to maintain an iron grip on the market. There is nothing wrong with MS's product monopolizing the market. The problem comes when MS uses that monopoly to attempt controlling other businesses, squashing competitiong, engaging in anti-competitive practices, etc, etc, etc.Â
There is nothing wrong with MS being a monopoly. There IS something wrong with MS telling companies that if they want to make a program for any PC that uses Windows then they can't do other things. Why? Because it forces a company with a product MS likes to either be controlled by MS or to essentially risk bankruptcy. There IS something wrong with MS using their windows monopoly to prevent companies like netscape, firefox, etc. from gaining a foothold in the market by offering their own product free with windows.
instead, it shows that the AFL is pretty big.
Log in to comment