>
I disagree. Who else but a developer can tell you if an OS or a product allows or restricts innovation?
>

Not a very good rebuttal. Again, my point is that in issues like this, skills specific to the discipline of software development are not germane. Somebody with a fundamental understanding of the technology, what it can do and so forth, can certainly comment on what allows for or restricts competition. If you are going to refute my statement, you will need to do so in terms of proving why software development skills are germane. And FWIW, just saying they are germane won't cut it..< bg >..

>
I am of the opinion that MS broke the law with some of its trade practices. I am not of the opinion that giving a product away for free should be against any sort of law. I am of the opinion that the punishment should fit the crime- restrict MS' illegal practices. They are not a monopoly, if they were, Linux wouldn't be in the headlines at all.
>

Linux, being in the news or not, is 100% irrelevant with respect to the argument of whether MS is/is not a monopoly.

>
Agreed. The rules have changed so much, that virtually no case law applies. This industry moves an order of magnitude faster than any other industry, and the barriers to entry are next to nothing. There is NO case law that applies here.
>

How do you know there is absolutely NO new case law that applies here? As for barriers being next to nothing, lets apply a litmus test. Can you today, fund development of a new OS and successfully market it? My guess is that you cannot. It would take 100's of millions of dollars both in terms of RD and marketing dollars. That it is folly to think that no significant barriers to entry exist in this industry.

>
I am not sure this is possible. Where are you going to find a lawyer that has practical development experience in the current climate? If you find one, he hasn't been a lawyer for long, and if he has been a lawyer for long, his expereince is obsolete. It's a catch 22, IMO.
>

It is possible. Just because somebody has not practiced law all that long does not make them unqualified. Again, the lawyer just needs a fundemental understanding of the technology. While development skills in the trenches are nice to have, they are not required..


>>Notice what I did not say - the ability to program. The ability would rank about last on the list of required skills to given an educated opinion in this arena..< s >.
>
>I have stated why I disagree with this.

Yes, you stated why you disagree. However, you offered nothing that provides a measure of validity with respect to weakening my POV..

>>By the way, the geek lawyer you refer to is Lawrence Lessig - THE reigning legal authority on law as it applies to both the constitution and the world of technology. If the gov't has only 1 choice for counsel, this is the guy. Put it this way, he earned is JD in 1989. He is a young guy, he has a clue.
>
>I never meant to imply that he doesn't. Only that the guys making the decisions are lawmakers, and have only had the relevant facts relayed to them.
>

Well you implied that if one has not been a lawyer all that long, they don't have a clue...