>>I'm no lawyer, but I think the strongest argument one could make is that Microsoft appears to have pursued a systematic pattern of deceptive pseudo-promotion of VFP aimed at destroying all significant competition in the mid-range DBMS marketplace. It could also be argued that this behavior has done substantial, quantifiable financial harm to Microsoft's customers who have been deceived over the years by these practices. But I would expect that the issue of punitive damages, broader anti-trust ramifications, and negative PR value might weigh more heavily in the outcome of any such lawsuit.
>>
>
>
>In this rambling, while you have come to a series of conclusions, there is not a single valid legal argument to be found...
>
>Seriously, you are leading with 'Microsoft appears to have pursued a systematic pattern of deceptive psuedo-promotion of VFP...'????
>
>Exactly where as MS deceived you? Seems to me that MS has been pretty clear about VFP's role @ MS. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that Fox IS NOT the strategic focus of the company. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that MS will not be promoted beyond the current customer base. Fact, MS has said on more than one occasion that the landscape Fox is not likely to change. Fact, MS has said that it will continue to support and invest in Fox. It just so happens they are not doing it at a level you like. News flash, MS is not under any obligation, legally, morally, ethically, or otherwise to promote VFP at a level that would fit with your comfort level.
>
>
>Punitive damages??? Broader anti-trust ramifications???? You must be kidding.
>
>FYI, you have a remedy...its called dbase2000. If you think the grass is greener over there, I suggest you check it out...< bg >...
>
>Mike... it is time to move on.... You don't have a leg to stand on here....

John,

I am not impressed by Microsoft's so-called "candor" about its strategy for VFP, and I don't think they can afford to be straight about what the've been doing. Have they been truthful? You could maintain that, but I think it would be more to the point to ask whether they have told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That is the standard to which people are customarily held, and by that standard I don't think they measure up.

No one ever pretended that FoxPro is the "strategic focus of the company", but that is quite different from stating that Microsoft will deliberately suppress the effective marketing of the product, even if it costs them nothing. There is no way that MS has ever been so forthright as to simply say VFP "will not be promoted beyond the current customer base", as you put it, John. Always, such pronouncements from MS are qualified with "primarily", and double-talk about not being able to spend more than some limited budget dictated by the revenues that VFP is expected to generate. Come off it, John, I have always made it clear that at issue is the things that MS withholds that cost them nothing.

Does a company have any moral obligation to its customers? Perhaps not, but I doubt you'd get any favorable press by claiming otherwise, and I don't see how failing to market VFP does a thing to serve the interests of Microsoft's shareholders. The only rational purpose I can see is that Microsoft has been endeavoring to carry out a legally questionable manipulation of the marketplace. I'm sorry that you fail to see the anti-trust ramifications, but I think there are others in the legal profession who would see it differently, and I believe there is ample evidence that many people, as well as society in general are harmed by Microsoft's monopolistic abuses.

Yes, there are a few other companies desperately clinging to what is left of the mid-range DBMS marketplace, hopelessly ill-equipped to compete with Microsoft's unfair advantage over them. No doubt MS would like to keep them in just the same sort of zombified state as it keeps VFP, because it just won't do to be too obvious about not merely crushing a single company or product, but an entire market segment. That's how I see it, John, and I don't see the point of further debating it with you.

Mike