I wonder how the author can attribute the CCIA's actions to Microsoft (or call the CCIA a Microsoft funded organization) when the CCIA appears to have been as equally vigorous pursuing the antitrust claims against Microsoft. Most companies don't sue themselves or piss in their own mess kits.
-----Original Message----- From: McKown, John Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Microsoft claims mainframes anti-competitive > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 7:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Microsoft claims mainframes anti-competitive > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/0652216/Microsoft-Back > ed-Firm-Sa > ys-IBM-Is-Anticompetitive WOW, that's the pot calling the kettle Farberware! (to avoid any offense in this PC era). The argument, as I read it is that the z is simply too efficient at the newest "cloud" computing. And that's putting a crimp in the Windows server market. And MS has a guaranteed right to be on top regardless of changes in the computing landscape. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
