Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Nov 2006 10:55 UTC, submitted by Jean Claude
Linux French députés' offices will be equipped with a Linux operating system and open source productivity software. There will be 1154 French parliamentary workstations running on an open source OS, with OpenOffice.org, Firefox and an open source email client.
Thread beginning with comment 186003
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Nice...
by Soulbender on Tue 28th Nov 2006 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Nice..."
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"A monopoly doesn't have to be absolute to be subject to violate federal statutes that regulate business trusts and monopolies."

Sure it does. MS is neither a monopoly nor a trust in the legal sense thus it is not subject to laws regulating monopolies and trusts. There are of course still many other laws it can be violating (using monopolistic practices, for example).
(Edit: I didn't express this well. What I mean is that MS can't be tried *as* a monopoly but it is still subject to the laws regulating and preventing the creation of monopolies)

"MS's market presence is strong enough for it to engage in monopolistic practices. Ergo, it is for all practical purposes a monopoly."

Not it is not. Using monopolistic practices does not make you a monopoly. It is however illegal to use monopolistic practices since it tend to lead to monopolies.
It really pains me to agree with NotParker but he is right on this; MS is not a monopoly in the legal sense.

( legal definition of monopoly: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m138.htm )

Edited 2006-11-28 07:25

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Nice...
by archiesteel on Tue 28th Nov 2006 15:08 in reply to "RE[10]: Nice..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

"Not it is not. Using monopolistic practices does not make you a monopoly. It is however illegal to use monopolistic practices since it tend to lead to monopolies."

From a legal point of view, it makes little difference whether you're a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly. This is why MS was tried under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

If what you said was true, then MS wouldn't have been tried for violating the Sherman Act, but in fact it was.

A "legal monopoly" is, as the word says, legal. It happens when a company is granted exclusive access to a market in accordance to Law. So a Monopoly in the legal sense is not in fact breaking any laws.

All right, since you guys seem very keen on defending MS by being so nit-picky, let's agree to call MS a "monopolist", because it was found guilty of monopolistic practice. Are we all cool with that (trolls notwithstanding)?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Nice...
by Soulbender on Wed 29th Nov 2006 06:12 in reply to "RE[11]: Nice..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"If what you said was true, then MS wouldn't have been tried for violating the Sherman Act, but in fact it was. "

Actually, it is exactly like I said. To be tried under the Sherman Act it is enough to *try* to monopolize or otherwise restrain a market, you don't already have to be a monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

"A "legal monopoly" is, as the word says, legal. "

I didnt say legal monopoly, I said "in the legal sense" as in "in the way monopoly is defined in the law".

Btw, I'm not defending MS but it bothers me when people use the wrong terms or try to make MS into something they're not.

Reply Parent Score: 1