Mmmm... BEEFY!

It' s your inability to take on board legitimate and credible arguments that is ultimately proving to be a problem here, Rampage. You' ve already been warned several times about getting on peoples cases, and only 5 or 6 posts into this forum, you got on my case for absolutely no reason at all - so pushing the blame my way isn' t particularly fair. The reason why I said you' re an MS zealot is because you' ve dismissed everything I' ve said out of hand without even considering the alternatives I' ve provided. Perhaps if you' d provided compelling evidence to sway me the other way, I' d have listened - but I' m not just going to take your word for it, am I? Jesus...


It isn' t debate that destroys forums, its the lack of an open mind that ultimately brings an end to forums of debate. I had thought we' d settled our difference on this matter amicably, but as soon as someone came to question me you were quick to jump back into the battle, weren' t you?


first off lying goes against my moral grain so why would i go out of my way to lie to someone in a forum who i dont even know


Note: anyone who does lie is, by default, not as good a person as Call911. I think I hear someone telling a tramp they don' t have any spare change.

You were confrontational from the off Call911, so don' t start moaning now I' m defending myself against the vultures.

And frankly, who' s opinion am I going to listen to? A bunch of people with very little insight into the issue or a government outfit who spent a great deal more time coming to this conclusion? hmmmm?

the first link leads to a guy who can' t even write properly. How much faith am I going to put into a writer who can' t even punctuate his article properly? A poorly formed opinion wrapped up in lazy writing.

the second link gives a list of O.S.' that aren' t viable options at all. There are so many compatibility issues here that I can' t even be bothered to point them all out. On top of that, doesn' t the fact that almost all of these Operating systems are free indicate that MS is a monopoly? If these " competitors" don' t charge for their product then they can' t be regarded as relevant to the economic climate.

To wit: If Coca Cola were the only makers of coke in the world, would my attempt at making coke and selling it outside my house mean they don' t have a monopoly? No, of course it wouldnt.

The third link comes straight from the mouth of Bill Gates - well he' s not going to admit he' s fostered a monopoly, is he?

The fourth says nothing and offers little evidence to support its ramblings.

The fifth link makes a compelling argument, and for that I applaud him. However, his minority take on the matter, coupled with the fact that the only thing preventing MS from being officially recognised as a Monopoly by International law is MS' legal team makes his argument flawed.


I' ll give you this though Call911, you' ve been the first to provide any kind of legitimate argument to counter my own.

-I had this post Deleted- stupid comment clearly with no point to it [:' (]

Preacher, you' re the only one to throw insults my way. I got in a rumble with fathoms not you. I never insulted you in anyway and didn' t get on your case. You' re the one making comments toward me. Oh and 5 posts in? I have been here since the start, notice the highest post count here. I' d also like to know when I' ve been warned...

I don' t openly attack people unless they do it to me or bring it on themselves. I have in no way attacked you yet in this forum, or gotten on your case, yet you think I have and insult me for it.

Your arguement is flawed and false and I have no reason to give evidence to proove otherwiise. You want proof, read the defenition of a monopoly. Bam, discussion over. MS is not a monopoly. As long as there are other viable alternatives to MS(i.e. Mac, Linux), it can' t be called a monopoly.

You' ve lost.

Well, um...*calms you both down* I' m sure Microsoft has another 700 million anyway ^^;; This is probably just something small for them, I mean, this is Microsoft we are speaking of.

Yeah, they have the money to pay it off, and that' s why people go after them. It' s easier to get that kind of money from MS because they won' t put up a massive fight since that' s not a huge amount for them. They are an easy target.

you' re right Kikoshin, this is small change to them, but they' re fighting it anyway. It' s one of the largest fines of its kind to be handed out, which Microsoft construes as being unwarranted, which it may or may not be, I don' t know exactly how that total came to be.


Rampage, you' re going into semantics. Definition by dictionary doesn' t necessarily agree with the definition laid out by the justice Department or the E.U.


If Microsoft could rely on a dictionary definition as their entire defence case, they would' ve had this thrown out by now, yes? Instead their legal outfit is delaying and postponing the inevitable.

Rampage,

Post office should not apply, because it is run by the government, and it doesn' t operate to make a profit. It is a SERVICE. I guess Air traffic controllers is a monopoly, because they are run by the government and their is no competition. I' ve already mentioned the military (in response to your earlier mention of the post office). As far as that goes, Congress is a monopoly, no other company legislates laws in the US. So, if Congress is not a monopoly, and Military is not a monopoly, and Air Traffic controllers is not a monopoly, then Post office is not a monopoly. The CDC also has a lock on government health and human services market. Put simply, government services should not be considered as a monopoly. They operate to protect/provide for the population. Business doesn' t care if we get protected from Terrorists, they want to make money. Military doesn' t want to make money (of course they NEED to use it), they want to protect us from terrorism. If Federal Express was told they can' t operate at a profit, they would shut down. Post office doesn' t have that option.

Walgreens is not a very good example, either (at least on the national front). In my area, there is a Walgreens, Eckerd drugs, CVS, then, there is always Kroger, Publix, Ingles and other stores that sell the same things as Walgreens. So, they don' t have a strangle hold on the competition.

I won' t comment too much on PS2, as you have been known to state that Xbox is a valid contender for consoles (plus I have 3 other consoles counting GBA, so, I wouldn' t consider them a monopoly). Now, I guess I would conceed that they came close to the market share that MS has on OS around the launch date, but, that was mainly due to MS and Nintendo being late to market with their systems. They got to market first and sold a bunch of their product. Now the market is balancing out. (at least I heard xbox is now outselling PS2).

Preacher, it' s simply because people want their money. That' s all it is.

Deadmeat, by definiton governments are usually the ones to set up monopolies. As far as my PS2 to GC and Xbox comparison, it equals out to what MS is. I do consider the Xbox a valid contender, and even with GC down by far it is also making enough to stay alive. If you don' t consider PS2 a monopoly of the console market how can MS be considered a monopoly of the OS market? Macs are selling quite well and my grandma loves it because her stocks just keep going up. Linux is now being used in numerous countries and is powering super computers. Does MS still have the margin? Yes. Does PS2 still have the margin? Yes. Do people call the PS2 a monopoly? No. How can MS be considered one if it still has viable competition?

I already agreed that PS2 WAS close to the position MS HAS in OS. But, once Xbox and GC were released, that was not the case anymore. But, I' m not really here to turn this into a PS2 v Xbox. So, we can agree that (for a few months) PS2 had a position that is similar to windows. But, not for the 15 to 20 years that MS has been in their position.

We apparently will not be agreeing on much else, but to answer your question. I think MS has as close to a monopoly as can be obtained legally. (which they have been sued for breaking anti trust laws here in the US as well). So, I consider them a monopoly.

What we have in this thread is an impasse. I will not concede that there are enough VIABLE options. I know your sources for MACS on other forums. I also know that Peylow is here as well. I don' t consider MAC an option (sorry Peylow). There are ENDLESS amounts of support for windows. Linux may run supercomputers, but, I don' t have a supercomputer, so, I won' t concede that in an argument, either. LINUX does not have enough support, IMO, to be considered competition to Windows. As I' ve stated before OS2 was a great system. Not viable competition to windows. There just wasn' t enough support. Did you ever even here of OS2 before this thread?

I also saw the list of free OS. If I can' t get tech support, they are not options to rely on running my computer. Also, they are free, so, they aren' t in competition with anybody. But, support for those " products" (if you can call them that), will be very little.

So, I disagree with some of your arguments. And since you are not willing to concede any of your arguments, I am also not willing to concede mine. In that respect, we' re the same.

Antitrust laws - established originally to prevent conglomerates from overpowering industries by legal means and then maintaining control by anticompetitive means.

Anticompetitive? Doesn' t that seem contradictory to what a company would want to do? That' s because it' s a misnomer. Anticompetitive really means Ultracompetitive - competitive to the point of being willing to accept a net loss - for a period of time - in order to defeat a competing product or firm.

Consider Microsoft - what if Company A made " OS Q" , and " OS Q" was far better than Windows. Because Company A is infinitely smaller than Microsoft, it has to offer its product at a higher price - say, $150 as opposed to the $100 Microsoft charges. That would mean that consumers would have to find it to be 150% as good as Windows for them to buy it.

Is that fair? Of course it is - it' s called economics. If a corporation can efficiently make a product and offer it for a price that makes its cost-to-benefit ratio higher than its competitors' , then it is the most efficient corporation, and is thusly best suited to continue production - and the market will enforce that by causing the less efficient firm to drop out of the business due to lack of revenue.

However, suppose, OS Q is TWO hundred percent as good as Windows, but only 150% the price. Suddenly people start to buy OS Q. Now suppose Microsoft doesn' t like that - so they lower their price to $70 - making their product half as good for less than half the price. That' s oversimplified, obviously - maybe there is some intrinsic benefit to using OS Q, who knows, but just ignore that for the sake of this comparison. Suddenly people buy Windows again. But - Microsoft is losing money at $70. The catch? It doesn' t matter. Microsoft can stand to lose money, because it' s been around longer making profits - Company A goes out of business anyway, even though it was producing more efficiently at the time. Then MS can raise prices back to normal, and recoup its losses.

Is that fair? No. Markets don' t have a built in way to correct for existing profits being used as buffers to allow for negative-profit schemes to get rid of competitors. Hence antitrust laws.

Now, to the argument. Microsoft is not a monopoly, it' s as simple as that. It' s not even illegal to be a monopoly, as long as you got there fairly. The case against Microsoft is that it illegally is engaging in some of the afforementioned illegal behavior - except, with a twist.

The charge against Microsoft is that it is using its " previous profits" (speaking metaphorically here) of legally commanding a massive amount of the operating system market to illegally force out of competition makers of software programs designed to run on the Windows operating system. At first, it was specifically Internet Explorer, and now it' s a host of other items. Mainly, they claim that Microsoft makes it unreasonably difficult to install third-party programs, or to make them the default application for use.

While this is debateable, one key point is clear - the charges are unfounded. They are based on the idea that Windows and other Microsoft software programs are completely separate, when in reality they are not. Bear with me here. They claim that Microsoft got market share with an innovative OS, then used that ability to force monopolies on what software could be run on their OS' s.

This should set off a red flag right there - it' s Microsoft' s product - they can make it however they want. They could make it so that it only ran microsoft products. That' s right - just Microsoft software. The thing is, that wouldn' t go over too well, because people wouldn' t like Windows anymore. However, if people still buy Windows when it only runs, say, Internet Explorer as a web browser (even though that' s never been the case), then that' s perfectly fine and legal. It means they' re still willing to use it considering that. As long as Microsoft doesn' t undercut someone' s pricing using illegal net losses supported by existing assets, they' ve done nothing wrong. If people don' t like the fact that Microsoft is more efficient than they are - tough.

" first off lying goes against my moral grain so why would i go out of my way to lie to someone in a forum who i dont even know


Note: anyone who does lie is, by default, not as good a person as Call911. I think I hear someone telling a tramp they don' t have any spare change. "

wow. you know you have a really good way of twisting words and making it seem like they mean something else. maybe you should be a politician.

by telling you that lying goes against my moral grain i was in no way implying that i am perfect or that i never lie. i just vehemently dislike it, no ones perfect. the point i was trying to make which i thought was evident but apparently you failed an english class somewhere that was an integral part of your reading comprehension skills maybe ill have to break it down to you. i am not going to lie about a small factor in an online forum to people i dont even know to make you or anyone else look bad. call me crazy but u just got morals out the wazoo like that.

and i was confrontational, yes indeed. but only because you were first, not to me specifically but in general. and it wasnt just you other people were confrontational as well. and i said what i said because up until that point i just heard you talking about your opinion while completely ignoring others opinions simply because they were contrary to your own.

ramp has never been warned (as far as i know) for improper use of the forums and hes never attacked you previously for no reason. i know my best bud, he wouldnt do that sort of thing.

and how am i moaning about the vultures again? i seem to have missed that part. oh you must mean the part in my last post where i explained why i was posting according to your rules? is that it? cry about it fool. i was pointing out that it was dumb to post someone elses opinion that molded your own opinion. your being led around by the nose by these information giants who give you supposed " unbiased" news.

and how can you get off calling someone elses legitimate opinion " poorly formed" . the first link i posted led to a granted poorly expressed and punctuated opinion, however it was a legitmate arguement, you can not dismiss it.

and do you think i or we in the forum are ignorant to politics, the legal system, laws, and motivation? do you realize how much money these people stand to gain from pointing the finger at MS? MS has helped companies to grow, to become competive with them. hell, the main reason LINUX doesnt get used by many American consumers is because it incompatable with applications made for windows. the reason being that the source code for linux is different and thus it executes applications in a different way. recently though MS has released its source code to, get this, companies that produce rival products. gasp!

these free OS are completely relevant. if someone were to go out of their way to use a free OS instead of windows (an example is my dad) that would obviously take customers away from MS so it does have relevance in the economic climate. and as i said in the paragraph above the compatability is because of the source coding.

as for your comment on the 3rd link, i dont know why you think Bill Gates is some sort of diabolical maserind bent on taking over the world via an operating system but maybe if thats how you sleep at night, whatever.

the fourth link, ah, did you happen to read the whole thing? " Read _ONE_ seller. Not 2 or 3, ONE. And there is not just _ONE_ seller in
the PC operating systems market." i would say that is a fairly good arguement, specifically the latter portion of it. i was merely posting the link to highlight a fact that you seem to over look or blatently disregard, yet again we see a fine example of your reading comprehension skills. by the way what state did you go to school in? was it arkansas or alabama?

the fifth link, well i guess you know better than an educated professional in the field dont you? and your flinging that " fact" word around again. what have i told you about that? back it up.

" If Microsoft could rely on a dictionary definition as their entire defence case, they would' ve had this thrown out by now, yes? Instead their legal outfit is delaying and postponing the inevitable."
but MS isn' t being called a monopoly because of its OS or because they supposedly force people out of the market its what they packaged with Windows. people " claim" that MS rigged windows so that other competitors programs dont run as well or are hard to install, configure, etc. that is a completely stupid claim. they couldnt prove that even if they dug through every bit of code in windows. it is the programmers of the apps that are to blame for incompatability, crashing, inability to configure or install, what ever the case may be. programmers are lazy they will take the path of least resistance to make their code work, but sometimes the easiest path is not the best path. the windows programmers know the best way to make an app work with windows so it makes sense that they would provide software of their own to use with the services provided for computers these days. it makes sense that they would include an internet browseing app and an e-mail app and an instant messenger app. these are included with windows (the newest versions anyway), however do we as the consumerhave to use the product provided with the OS? no of course not. there are plenty of working apps out there that can do the same thing if not better (provided the app had a competant programmer) so it would seem absurd to use a program given to you with windows that you dont like, right? so it seems like a very big stretch to call MS a monopoly. Preacher this entire time all you have done is post links to stuff and ranted on about how ol' BG is the devil and MS is the biggest friggen shameful deceitful thing youve seen in your whole life, you havent however told us what is it about MS that makes it a monopoly, is it the OS? or the apps? or the highly protected source code? or maybe its because MS is so successful, yes thats it, they have so much money they have to be doing something illegal! lets see what we can get them on with a technicality! what im trying to say is that you havent presented your opinion on what exactly makes MS a monopoly. sure we know the bureaucrats have condemned MS, and maybe they do know better than us, but do they have good grounds to do so? and maybe they dont know better, ive seen some pretty dumb get elected. i dont want someone elses opinion, i dont want to a link to a site telling me what MS has been charged with.

TELL ME WHY IT IS A MONOPOLY. WHAT MAKES IT A MONOPOLY.

daaaaaaaaamn i wish i could speak my mind like that Call911. But wow i totally agree with you. And as you and others said before MS isnt a monopoly but merely on the edge of it.

Nice! Tis true tis true. MS is simply not a monopoly.

Call911, the fact that you choose to ignore the precedents set by law isn' t my problem. I' m not going to explain the law to you.

You' re asking me to prove that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power when in fact I don' t need to, because it' s already been proven. I' m not a lawyer or lawmaker and wouldn' t presume to be able to prove to you Microsoft is a monopoly. If you read beyond this paragraph, then you' ll see I' ve outlined the legal findings supporting my opinion.


Now I' m willing to be civil from this point on if you' ve got the capacity to be also. If you don' t, then this thread will be nothing more than you and me arguing, and for the good of the forum, I suggest that we both attempt to restrict ourselves from such unbecoming behaviour. If you wish to perpetuate this thread in the same vicious manner it has been from the beginning, then by all means make your next post a vitriol-filled one. However, I would ask that for the benefit of newcomers that you show the same restraint that I intend to.

devo6486, welcome to the forums.


Is that fair? Of course it is - it' s called economics. If a corporation can efficiently make a product and offer it for a price that makes its cost-to-benefit ratio higher than its competitors' , then it is the most efficient corporation, and is thusly best suited to continue production - and the market will enforce that by causing the less efficient firm to drop out of the business due to lack of revenue.


This is where your argument lost it for me a little. Whilst yes, what Microsoft has done is essentially just good economics, you' re assertion neglects to mention that before Microsoft came along, there were already antitrust legislations in place, ones which Microsoft must have known they would be subject to were they to gain the kind of power they have today.


In terms of legal analysis, your argument pretty much comes into line with that of Microsofts. I' m therefore surprised that you would assume to know the definitive truth as to whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not, given the following:

I refer you to the civil action taken against Microsoft in the U.S. district court and the findings of fact therein, which finds that Microsoft does indeed enjoy monopoly power in the industry.


the Court finds the following facts to have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court shall state the conclusions of law to be drawn therefrom in a separate Memorandum and Order to be filed in due course.

III.
MICROSOFT' S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET


33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

Thomas Penfield Jackson
U.S. District Judge


Compelling enough?


the full document can be found here, should you want to read it

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm


Though I daresay a lot of you wont.


I' m not going to respond to any confrontational or personal attacks from here on in, because it' s just tiring and frankly it' s pointless. I' ll continue with the debate: I won' t however put up with hate-filled crap and vitriolic, poorly informed opinions. If you' d rather see this thread return to a state of civility, then I suggest you do the same.

What you have neglected to realize, preacher, is that the enjoyment of monopoly power is not illegal.

I have no disagreement with the idea that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. It is not a sole monopoly, but it is by far the largest player in a monopolistic competition for operating system market share.

Antitrust legislation originally came into being to combat the insane amount of cross-industrial power held by such conglomerates as owned by the Rockefellers and similar powerhouses after the immense industrialization that came about in the west prior to, during, and following the Civil War. Companies like US Steel and the major railroad conglomerate came to own such an immense amount of what accounted for the United States' economy and GDP that they were able not only to influence their own industries, but just about any other industry as well, and also even, unfortunately, political officeholders.

This kind of active abuse of power is what antitrust leglislation was designed to cut off. It' s the reason why oil companies that came later really don' t run the nation, despite the populist economic leanings that some on the left are echoing nowadays (I bet some of them are downright upset that the " cross of gold" speech has already long since been made). They' re limited by their own competition, since the first one to strike it big was kept from undermining attempts by other businesses to enter the industry.

Microsoft doesn' t even come close to the power and control that the railroad companies and manufacturing conglomerates held in the nineteenth century - yet for some reason they were made a target for antitrust violations.

Remember - it' s not illegal to be a sole, total monopoly, much less to simply enjoy monopoly power. It' s illegal to abuse the power in the way I described in my first post - and you' ll be hard pressed to find any evidence that Microsoft ever engaged in any of that behavior.

The case against Microsoft is one representing the resentment and jealousy of those who haven' t made it big against a firm that has, based on a solid, cutting edge product that propelled them to a position in which they are the best suited to produce and can most cheaply and efficiently produce new such technology.

People too quickly assume that immense success or total victory in the marketplace is either illegal, or was obtained by some illegal means. But we' ve got to get beyond that as a nation, get beyond resenting those who are successful, else we' re going to tumble into the same spiral that Europe is now in - constantly expanding the welfare state until entire sections of people don' t work not because they can' t find a job, but because it' s easier simply not to do so.

We have to maintain the entreprenuerial spirit that this nation was founded on, the spirit that built the American dream of working hard and being rightly rewarded for that work to build a better life for oneself.

Instead, we' re perverting that vision, attacking successful firms and demanding their wealth be redistributed. We' re beginning to foster a society that lives by the litigation lottery, suing every deep pocket we can find. And the case against Microsoft is a perfect example of that - a perfect example of how someone could easily now get the idea that there' s no reason to shoot for great success, because even if you make it, you' ll be branded a pirate and a villian, and your wealth stripped from you for your crime of acheivement.

An addition, if you will, that I just realized ...

Apparently, the person who wrote the opinion you quoted does not understand monopoly.

It was reasoned in that passage that since Microsoft could charge more for its product without losing an unacceptable amount of business, then it has monopoly power.

This is downright wrong. It makes me wonder how someone who obviously didn' t pay much attention in high school economics is now in some station of power.

A monopoly maximizes profit by balancing their price as high as possible while still gaining more profit per unit sold - basically, by operating where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.

By increasing price, they lose some buyers, but make more money on those they keep. The point at which this balance is level is where they' ll operate, which generates an equillibrium point with a price much higher than a competitive market in which supply is not affected by the quantity supplied by one firm.

However... in Microsoft' s case, that would not occur! The judge states that Microsoft could raise prices and NOT LOSE AN UNACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF BUSINESS. In reality, it would probably lose almost NO business - everyone needs Windows. But how much are people really willing to pay? $100? $400? $1000? No one would buy Windows if it were $10000. But what about $3000? Even at that price, people would switch to an alternative, even a more shoddy one. It' s just NOT WORTH $3000. This means that in the existing market, Microsoft is UNDER-pricing their product. They are still operating in a range where increasing price will have a negligible effect on quantity sold.

How? It' s simple - they are the only ones capable of producing a product of that caliber. To say that its price could be made " higher than in a competitive market" is ludicrous - a competitive market can' t exist, because no one else can make such a product. A monopolistic market of sorts is existing... but Microsoft isn' t operating in the monopolistic range... they have not yet reached a price point where increasing price loses any quantity sold!

If they upped the cost of a new license from, what is it, $350, to $500 - businesses, which make up a massive chunk of purchasing, would not buy any fewer licenses. They still have to operate!

As such, though Microsoft COULD enjoy monopoly power, they are electing NOT to do so, oddly enough, perhaps for public relations reasons or some other intangible benefit, and are operating at a point below their product' s COMPETITIVE VALUE point, where it should be priced for it to sell the maximum number of copies at the maximum price. It' s selling the maximum number of copies at a lower than optimal price - not enjoying any monopoly power at all, but rather, completely disregarding it.

So even though enjoyment of monopoly power is not illegal, Microsoft isn' t even maximizing their revenue by legally using such power, that I conceed it probably could enjoy if it wanted to.

This misunderstanding by the arbiter of this case is crucial, and all but proves his incompetence as an authority on an economic dispute.

im glad to see you making an effort at being civil. i dont dislike you Preacher, i may not like your view points but i do like the fact that you stick to your view points. i will try my best to be civil as well, i enjoy and welcome debates however what we have been doing is not a debate.

i have not, as you insinuated, ignored precedents set by law. i am as aware as you are of the laws and the legal situation. i do question it though, it seems shady and not quite right as is, sadly, the case with many government issues.

I am not asking you to prove any thing. please dont twist my words and if you dont understand what i am asking you just PM me and ill explain. like i said before, i dont want links to other sites with other peoples opinions or sites with legal documents outlining any thing. no. none of that.

I AM INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION. I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND. YOUR REASONS WHY YOU THINK MS IS A MONOPOLY.

i put that in caps so that you absolutely couldnt miss it. i want you to stop dodging my questions and engage in a real debate instead of this petty arguement we find ourselves in. and it is an arguement and not a debate, dont anyone convince themselves otherwise.

and theres is no law against enjoying monopoly power. none. you wont find it anywhere. and its not right to try to get some one for it. its shady and an absolute perversion of what our legal system is supposed to be doing.

heres an analogy. say a little girl has a lemonade stand. got that? lemonade, not a hard concept here. ok. so this little girl is selling the best lemonade, so shes making a lot of money. the other kids see shes making a nice profit and decide to " jump on the band wagon" , if you will. their lemonade however is not as good as the little girls lemonade so she continues to dominate the business in the area, she enjoys monopoly power in the field of lemonade we' ll say. so one of the other little kids who sells the crappy lemonade points his finger at the little girl and tells one of his parents that the little girl is keeping him from selling his lemonade and making a profit. the parent then goes to the little girls parents and says that their little girl cant sell her good lemonade anymore because its keeping people from giving his/her child money.

is that right? anyone would have to be insane to say it is. its not, its shady. the parent is trying to take away that girls right to sell a product and make a profit by any means necessary within the boundaries of the law.

and even though MS seems to enjoy a monopoly power, its not illegal and they opperate within the confines of the law. let point out this to you.
" III.
MICROSOFT' S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET


33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

Thomas Penfield Jackson
U.S. District Judge


Compelling enough?"

do you see what im getting at? the stuff i put in bold? MS COULD over charge, COULD do so for a significant period of time, they however do not do so. they are not violating any anti-trust laws here.

and another thing about this judge. he contradicts himself. in the first part of the paragraph he speaks hypothetically, MS could do this, could do that. but, in the last sentence is where his contradiction sits. do you see it? " In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market." in that sentence he implies that they ARE, right now, doing everything he just said the COULD be doing.

so is this compelling enough you ask? indeed it is not. shady mc judgerson is gonna have to not contradict his own statement, and at the very least be competent in his chosen field for it to be compelling.

ill tell you what is compelling though. my current thought of looking up this judges record and seeing what other kind of rulings hes conjured up with that little gavel of his.

now please i ask that you answer my earlier questions so that we may get on with a real debate.

oh, so hilarious. i looked this judge up.

" WASHINGTON -- Thomas Penfield Jackson is not merely a federal judge with a soft spot for government prosecutors and an undisguised contempt for Microsoft executives.

He' s also a media blabbermouth, whose private chats with reporters wound up costing the Justice Department its biggest victory in a generation.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Jackson' s bad habit of trash-talking Microsoft honchos -- likening them to gangland killers and stubborn mules who should be walloped with a 2-by-4 -- was ample reason to overturn his breakup order and return the case to a different judge."

http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,44902,00.aspx?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
" full article"

I don' t even think I have to say any more. I was going to say exactly the same thing Call said about the judge but he beat me too it, NICE.

Devo, I' d like to welcome you and say those were two of the best posts I have ever seen in a debate.

Preacher- " you know where the door is, you have been pwned."