On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:25, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Then if MS is competing fairly in the marketplace of ideas within the
> constraints of limited hardware and software purchasing resources
> (money, i.e.), then the better player will win.
>
> But if MS exerts unjust force, outside proper market mechanisms, then
> they can continue to (appear to) succeed with an inferior and / or
> overpriced offering.
>
> That's why they must, if necessary, be forced legally to abide by proper
> competitive practices and not use their existing monopoly to strong-arm
> hardware vendors and large, institutional purchasers into choosing MS
> products when those purchasers would be better served by choosing an
> alternative.
Yes indeed...
... my point was (I clarify) more to your point that M$ "will be the
predominate OS for quite some time" is way over-stated. Whatever legal
pressure is brought forward IS NOT because M$ will be the *predominate* OS
for quite some time... they should be forced to compete *fairly* because it
is the right thing to do. Frankly though, I think they met their Waterloo
with Fixta... time will tell.
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
