Eric Cordian wrote: > 1. Because of the "application barrier to entry", no one can effectively > compete with Microsoft in the Intel/PC market OS, giving microsoft a > monopoly in this market. > > This is bogus, because an OS designer can certainly support Microsoft's > APIs in addition to whatever native API he invents. obviously, you aren't following projects like wine very closely, which have been trying to do this for years. but M$ is rapidly changing the API, and I'm taking bets that one of the reasons is to be a "moving target" for any attempts at doing what you propose. > If Windows cost $500 per machine, market forces would have already > produced a competing product. But since it doesn't, it is almost always > cheaper to use Windows than to write one of your own. a huge part of the windows installation base is pirated. yes, that includes business installations. > Windows has a monopoly because although it is a piece of shit, it is a > cheap piece of shit. That is the only reason it has a monopoly. it is "cheap" because it (usually) comes with the machine. you don't see the price-tag because it is included in the machine price. > No one is their right mind is going to seriously claim that the government > needs to start telling software vendors what features they may include in > each product they release. don't know about you over there, but over here in europe we DO tell vendors of all sorts of products what to include. for example, certain safety features are mandatory in all technical products. certain ingredients are illegal in food. and there IS a regulation that controls tying of products. the silicon valley holier-than-thou attitude shines quite brightly when someone requests that the high-tech industry be exempt from regulations that everyone else abides by. anyone here ever heard of DIN? it's something more narrow than ISO, specifying technical norms for products in germany. for example, there is a DIN that describes how screws look. (actually, several for the various types of screws and screw-heads, but let's screw that.) nobody complains about this stopping innovation or crap, because even if it to some extend does, the gain is far higher than any possible loss. the gain here is that all screwdrivers can get all screws into all screw-holes. how'd life feel if everything comes with it's own screws, and no others fit, and you also need a unique screwdriver? I wouldn't want to buy different screwdrivers and different screws for just about anything just because the vendor thinks it's cool if he makes his a little bit different. (yes, I am aware that there are different sizes, and types of heads and whatever. the deal with regulations and norms is to not make them too narrow, so there are various DINs for various sizes and types, instead of the futile attempt to make a one-size-fits-all rule. but that's really not the topic) > It was clear from day one of this trial, that "the fix was in" to screw > Microsoft, and what the verdict would be. > > I would be very surprised if Microsoft doesn't prevail on appeal. if they show the same attitude on the appeal, I'd be very surprised if billy boy doesn't get jailed for contempt of court.
