>
Actually, this isn't true. You can get all kinds of Linux machines and from major vendors like IBM. Check out the following story at http://www5.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2491800,00.html?chkpt=zdnntop
>

Joe average user is not going to buy an IBM Server...< s >.. My frame of reference was in the context of retail outlets such as CompUSA, ComputerCity, Gateway, Dell, etc.. In those channels, you don't have choice...

>
IBM is porting Linux to ALL of its servers. I'd say that this was pretty significant, wouldn't you? <g>
>

Yes, in one aspect of the market...

>
Now, no way does that mean that Microsoft has or has not exercized monopolistic practices. But, you can purchase Linux-loaded machines.
>

You can probably purchase machines with BeOS. The deal is, you cannot do it in a convient manner. Further, the amount of app software is light. Alothough, I would concede that in another year, I think there will be lots of Linux apps out there..

>
Right - I think that the issue is that magic line between agressive business practices and monopoly. Personally, I'd like to know why a monopoly is intrinsically bad.
>

Most people will tell you that phone service went into the tank after the ATT breakup in 1984. FWIW, I am not a big proponent of breaking up MS. However, if a breakup does become necessary, I do believe it can be structured so that it is a win/win for everyone. Of course, this is not what MS wants. So, they are more apt to paint a big picture of doom and gloom.


>The absolutely most efficient type of government is an absolute total dictatorship. Is a dictatorship intrinsically bad? No, actually it is not. However, given human nature we all would no doubt agree that we would not want to live within a dictatorship. Not because that form of government is bad or evil but because human nature is intrinsically prone to evil and abuse of power. Most people do not like this truth but it is true.
>

>If we took all the people out of Microsoft I seriously doubt we'd have to worry about the remaining stuff committing any crimes. <g>
>

>No Comment...

>
The reason we have laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is because we recognize that people will abuse power almost automatically when they have it. However, having such power doesn't automatically mean that this power will be abused, does it? No, of course not.
>

The anti-trust acts usually don't come into play until a business have done something to warrant prosecution. In this country, you don't get prosecuted for something you might do...

>We write laws to protect us from ourselves.

No Comment...

>
If Microsoft ported all their Office apps to Linux would this same bunch then complain that they (MSFT) were trying to "monopolize" Linux now? I'd bet they would. <g>
>
>Again, Microsoft may well have committed an illegal act. If they have broken the law there should absolutely be remidies as is apparently now going to be the case.
>
>>
>>Do I think MS is an evil empire - do I think Bill Gates is the Borg?
>>No.
>
>I dunnno about this..
>
>*rof'l*
>
>>
>>Do I think they at times have been extremely aggressive?
>>Yes.
>
>Indeed. Is being agressive against the law? Who is there out ther who is worth their salt who wants to compete to lose?
>
>>
>>As a developer, have a I benefited from the control that MS has over the OS?
>>Yes
>
>Dittos.
>
>>
>>Do I think there is some merit to the Gov'ts case?
>>Yes.
>
>Probably.
>
>>
>>Do I think the company should be broken up?
>>Too early to tell at this point..
>>But, if I were pressed for an answer - then No.
>>
>>Do I think MS own counter-proposal is sufficent?
>>No.
>
>Well, this is a classic poker game and we all know Bill loves poker. <g> Who is going to put their final offer on the table to start out? Any lawyer who did that would be shown the front door immediately - or perhaps sent back to file some papers in some catacomb. *bg*
>
>>
>>
>>All that said, please stop with the generic citing of college texts and strict defintions found in the dictionary. If it were that cut and dry, this case would have been over in a week....
>
>Agree totally. That's what makes this so interesting. I'm not at all convinced that Microsoft won't come away from this better off and if they turn their focus to the government and governmental processes in the form of lobbying I'd wager they will learn how to swim in those waters more quickly than their opponents think.
>
>Best,
>
>DD