>Hi John,
>
>>Again you no concerns. What would it take to make you concerned?
>
>At the end of the day, I really can't very excited about how much any particular company dominates the computer software industry. There are far more important issues in the world.
>
I do have a problem with hearsay being presented as fact. It has been said in this thread that Microsoft intend to tie up the software and hardware industries in such a way that it would be impossible to buy a non-Microsoft PC or to install another OS on a Microsoft PC.

Opps! Don't knee jerk so fast, Mark! I was repeating Predictions I had made in previous posts here and other places. But, since you mention it... What was Microsoft convicted of and the appelate court confirmed?

Violating the anti-trust provisions of the Sherman Act. Specificaly, if PC vendor A requires, as a condition of sale, that the customer MUST buy software from vendor B, even though such software is not essential to the operation of the PC, that requirement is a restraint of free trade. MS forced Dell and the others do so until DOJ pressure allowed them to relax PC vendor requirments a little. Remember IBM? They would knuckle under and MS raised their 'License Fee' to %300 of Dell's. (Illegal agreements are still a problem, even if under the radar, because MS persuaded a lot of peripheral vendors to remove the intelligence [CPUs] from the products and depend on MS OS to supply it, hence the birth of WinModems, WinPrinters, Graphics boards, etc. that only work on WinXX platforms. Some of the agreements with Graphics board vendors require that they keep the data on the boards propriatary. Another example of restraint of trade... why should it matter to a graphic card make how many different OS can use their boards. Why would they reduce their own market unless paid to do so? -- oh, it's too difficult to support more than one OS-- ya, right.)


>
>That would certainly concern me, but it isn't something that I see happening.
>
>Best.
>
>Matt.