On 5/11/05, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Todd Walton wrote: > > Oh, I see! I see now. We're arguing two different things. I'm > > saying that government regulates monopolies because they are ethically > > bad. You're saying that they regulate them because they're bad for > > the economy, and further, that the monopoly needn't actually be a > > "monopoly", but just overwhelmingly successful. > > I think they're the same thing: the government has "regulated" both when > they were good for the economy (actual regulation) and when they were > bad (sanctioned).
Right, but whether or not they should have is what's at question here. > > I believe that Microsoft is not maintaining its position > > in the market due to wrong-doing. The latter statement > > is what I've been arguing here. I take this back. They have wrong-done. What I believe is that Microsoft's maintaining its position in the market is not wrong. The various methods they use to do so have been oftentimes wrong. > > [1] http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/antitrst.htm > > At one time or another, including in the present, Microsoft has been > guilty of every one of those behaviors. Again, the validity of the law itself is what I'm arguing against. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
