>>With everyone around here venting for the last week or two, now its my turn.
>>
>>In case you've missed it there is now a lawsuit against MS, here in CA, charging that based on MS being called a monopoly, Windows should have cost $49.
>>
>>I think it's high time that penalities be established for bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit. Both for the plaintiffs and the attornies involved. This is beyound ridiculous.
>>
>>One of the "facts" these folks are basing their claim on, is from a Stanford professor who claims that without a "monopoly" Windows would have cost $79 instead of $89.
>>
>>This is just getting way out of hand.
>>
>>PF
>
>Perry,
>
>There was a facinating science fiction novellete many many moons ago in Analog Magazine that dealt with this issue. Essentially, on one certain planet, the prosecuting attorney would suffer the penalty of whatever charge they brought if they lost. *g* It made for very vaey cautions lawsuits! I think this would actually be a great way to go since it would immediately cause a huge increase in personal accountability and, I'd suspect, an equally huge decrease in frivilous, time-consuming and resource-consuming lawsuits.
>
>All that aside, the "new way" is for federal (and state) funding to be accomplished through the courts and judgements. I think it stinks, particularly since it's completely underhanded. (read: dishonest) I suspect unconstitutional as well.
>
>As always, follow the money.
>
>Best,
>
>DD


This reminds me of the junk science which is describing global warming. Just a few years ago the same data (and even the same experts) was evidence of global cooling.

How can anyone dtermine what something "should have" cost? Prices are set by the vendor, not averages. After all, at any price, Windows was less expensive that the Technologically superior, but little supported alternative, OS/2 WARP

For the UNIX affecionados, the FREE Linux is making inroads big time, and who is going to sue who there?