David,

>Doug,
>
>>Sayyyyy... Are you a lawyer too?
>
>You've crossed the line, now.

*rof'l*

And particularly since the US Constitution specifically prohibits using "fighting words". <g> Not that this particular provision has ever been used at all in any legal case. THAT would be interesting.

>
>>What?!?!?! Are you suggesting that this is a republic and that the federal government derives its powers from the several states!?!?!?
>
>What is, is. The constitution provides the method for amending itself, deferring to the states for that, and also reserves to the states any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution.
>
>It's a big leap from what the constitution describes to a point where the prez rules by executive order.

Man oh man... Don't get me started. <g>

Back to the original point... The whole notion of what constitutes a monopoly is very interesting to me, particularly with this current case re:DOJ v Microsoft.

Intent is awfully hard to prove but from what I've seen you could certainly construe the internal MSFT emails as suggesting that the various participants were at the edge if not over - or perhaps demonstrating their respective testosterone levels as we are often want to do. <g>

Best,

DD