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 186370
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Nice...
by Soulbender on Wed 29th Nov 2006 06:12 UTC 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

RE[13]: Nice...
by archiesteel on Wed 29th Nov 2006 14:59 in reply to "RE[12]: Nice..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

To me, describing MS as a "monopoly" is an acceptable shortcut, as they have a de facto monopoly on pre-installed PC OSes and Office file formats.

That said, I don't have a problem with "near monopoly", "quasi-monopoly", "monopolist" or even "alleged monopolist." I do think it's splitting hairs, and off-topic, and so that's all I'll say on the subject.

You did say, however, that "MS is neither a monopoly nor a trust in the legal sense thus it is not subject to laws regulating monopolies and trusts." The second portion is clearly false, since MS was in fact prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-Trust act, which is very much a law regulating monopolies and trusts. So it turns out we were both partially right, and partially wrong. I'm fine with leaving it at that. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[14]: Nice...
by Soulbender on Thu 30th Nov 2006 03:54 in reply to "RE[13]: Nice..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The second portion is clearly false,"

Yes, that's why I added the edit comment after I wrote that part ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1