>
There was nothing to refute, you offered no evidence or example for me to counter. You stated a non-technical person can, and I stated that they cannot. Further elaborating either point would require offering proof or example that neither you nor I has access to, and further, both statements are purely opinion.
>

Fine.. Tell me, do you think the CEO's of high tech firms, the folks charged with the responsibility can code? Some can, but for the most part, they cannot. Yet, they have a grasp of the business, the technology climate as a whole, etc. Programmers like to think that it is only them that can comment on such matters. And, FWIW, I did not use the terms Non-Technical. Rather, you are the one who has stipulated that only a software developer can make such an informed opinion. The fact is, one can be technical without being able to program. While it may be my opinion, the body of common knowledge that exists today would support my POV. Remember, I only need 1 person to bear this out. I don't think that would be too tough a cross to bear..< bg >..


>Linux is in the news because it is gaining marketshare at a blindingly fast pace. If MS had an OS monopoly, this would not be possible. Most or all definition of the word monopoly use the word exclusive. If a competing product is gaining marketshare, MS does not have exclusive control over the market.
>

What is defined as a blindingly fast past? It it as fast as VFP's "blazingly fast local data engine.." ?? < bg >... FWIW, ATT had a monopoly, and yet, there were small teleco firms around. The fact is, IBM had a monopoly, yet other computer firms existed. The fact is, the Standard Oil Trust had a monopoly, yet other oil/petroleum companies did exist. Just because Linux and other OS's exist, does not necessarily mean that MS does not have a monopoly. And of course, there is the MAC OS. If you were going to pick an example, I would have thought that the MAC OS would have been the better one.

Does MS have a monopoly? One one hand, yes. After all, if I want to buy a Dell Laptop, I have to choose among a choice of Windows. On the other, they don't have a monopoly if I look at the problem in terms of the fact that I could go out and buy a Mac. Then again, it could also be argued that the Mac OS and Linux are not perfect substitutes for Windows. If MS does not have a true monopoly, it has the power of one. And that is the substance of the argument.

Unfortunately, you won't find that on Dictionary.Com....< g >..

All that said, be careful about running off to dictionary.com for strict interpretations about specific words. One, it is not a good way to argue as it will usually come back to haunt you. Two, if it were only that easy - this whole debate would have been over a long time ago.


>
>>How do you know there is absolutely NO new case law that applies here?
>
>I don't know this for sure, but maybe you can help: where have we had, in the last several years, a company the size of Microsoft in the software business being accused of being a monopoly?
>

Then don't say that no new case law exists...< s > .... I am afraid you are framing your conclusions and thoughts too narrowly here. You really need to look at the software industry as a whole. As for specifics, I can't cite specific cases. Then again, I am not going out on a limb and making a conclusion one way or the other...


>>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.
>
>Isn't that what Linus Torvalds and his helpers did?
>

You said there are no significant barriers to entry? Regardless of what the Linux team did, the fact remains that significant barriers to entry really do exist...

>>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..
>
>Microsoft built the ability to convert a VFP cursor to an ADO recordset and vice-versa into VFPCOM. It says so right in the VFP docs. But you would have had to try to use this technique in production to know that, even though the feature is there, it's not practical to use. Didn't you say this, in so many words?
>

What does this have to do with what we are discussing???

>
I think that the same can be said for most of the practical issues involved in OS and software interaction. A lawmaker cannot really know how much the cooperatiomn of the OS developers, Tools developers, and the Browser developers really helps the developer. I know, because I write software that depends on that cooperation. To a lawmaker, it looks like collusion, to me, it looks like a beautiful orchestration.
<

You have simplied the issue way too much. Also, you are over-generalizing. Most developers tend to have their vision clouded over this issue because they tend to argue form a position predicated on their own self-interest - as opposed to an objective standpoint... Remember, I am a developer too... I can relate..