Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Mar 2009 17:04 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 352996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: wtf, this is completely absurd.
by sbergman27 on Fri 13th Mar 2009 07:23
in reply to "RE[2]: wtf, this is completely absurd."






Member since:
2006-07-04
EEEEEEEHHHHH. Wrong, Epic Fail!
How soon people forget or choose to not remember. Microsoft had contracts with OEMs that prohibited them from loading competitors software, or clauses in the contracts that penalized them so much money per unit if they put another browser (or music player, movie maker, etc) on their machines, it made it financially impossible for OEM's to offer choice and remain competitive.
In other words, they used their MONOPOLY in the desktop OS to keep competing products out of end users hands. This is known as illegal tying. You know..that thing they were taken to court for and found guilty of?
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to use that monopoly to restrict trade and competition, which is what Microsoft did. that is what this is all about.
Good grief.
That practice hasn't been in effect for almost ten years. The US dealt with that in the MS trial. The settlement reached between MS and the DOJ wrt that trial is still in effect. Can we move on to relevant arguments, please?