David Honig wrote: > >Microsoft broke every one of these. They have gone out of their way to > >reduce the ability of competition to come to market. > > Do you think you have to buy your competition a billboard > for 'equal access'? Must your salespeople > refer customers to competitors if they have a better deal? > Where is the violence if you offer bulk discounts to package > your product with another? What is the harm if you > add a widget to your gizmo that shrinks the widget market? wrong focus. it's not the duty of every participant to watch out for the rules. that's why we have referees in most sports. while we expect you to abide by the rules, we know that the realities will incite you to bend or break them. none of the rules say that you must refer your customers to competitors, or occasionally pass the ball to the enemy. but there are still rules, you know? > A free market means one with no guns ---it does not mean > anything else, especially this kind of welfare-mentality 'fairness', or any > royal pronouncement about what's 'best' > for the herd. bullshit. the whole theory of free markets rests on a couple basic assumptions. one of them is a large number of possible sellers and buyers. everything else distorts the model into something else, and monopoly (seller-monopoly more precisely) is just one of the possible outcomes. it's just that the free market has been shown both in theory and practical life to be better than the other models. THAT is why the society (and the government as it's executive branch) restricts monopolies. it's got nothing to do with welfare or fairness. disclaimer: of course, a lot of people interested in welfare, fairness, socialism or whatever still applaud this. but you're judging the play by looking at the audience. wagner isn't a bad composer because hitler liked his music.
