To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Microsoft was in fact found guilty of using anti-competitive behavior to maintain its monopoly on desktop operating systems. You can read U.S. v Microsoft. At no point was the suit dropped; the DoJ under Ashcroft simply didn't seek the same remedies the Reno DoJ had in mind.
The rest of your comment is equally stupid.
"Microsoft was .. on desktop operating systems."
No.
"You can read U.S. v Microsoft."
I did , you on the other end read the paper about it ;-)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm#supreme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. "
"The rest of your comment is equally stupid."
No ...





Member since:
2005-07-06
"According to the US Dept of Justice's"
REJECTED. The US gov switch its stands on anything depending on who'spaying them that week. Also charge where made and brought up , but where eventually dropped in the US.
"Apple Mac OS ... protected development."
REJECTED. Mac OS X is based on closed BSD , If it where impossible technically to run on other platform BSD would only run on PPC. Core Duo would not exist either ...
"OS/2 was ...the US. "
REJECTED. IBM choose to deliberatly not support its OS as it wrongly believed that Operating system did not mather.
"Linux and BSD were ... immune from the effects of market forces. "
REJECTED. Red Hat , Novell , Mandriva , Linspire , etc ... are all inside the commercial software marketplace.
"Why are you ignoring the facts?"
You havent given any.