>
Isn't there a difference between claming a monopoly exists, and someone trying to unlawfully create one?
>

If you think about it, it is a legal impossibility to "try and illegally create a monopoly". If you are in the process of creating something, it can't be a monopoly. i.e., the illegality comes in only after it has been established that A - a monopoly exists and B - it is violative of the Sherman Act.

>>
In this example, that's what's happening.
>>

See above...

>>
And even so, MS has already been nailed for doing this same thing - bundling software with the OS and/or forcing you to use their OS.
>>

That was not the real thrust. And for reasons I have stated elsewere, the VFP/EULA issue was not related to an impermissible tie. To review, MS is not saying you have to buy a windows license. What MS is saying is that the EULA for the royalty free runtimes - only extends to Windows. If you wish to run a VFP app on a non-windows platform - you need to be a DIFFERENT license - which happens to be the entire development version.

Just becuause you have to pay more $ - that does not make it illegal.

You know..there are a few folks in the community (non legal types) engaged in either writing about licensing issues or including it books. My guess is that there is A LOT of dis-information being perpetuated. I say this in light of the lack of understanding people have re: the topic.


>>
It appears there are already rulings against MS to prevent this exact type of stuff from happening...
>>

You mean the consent decree? Question - have you ever read it? You know, there were several phases of litigation. FWIW, the last I saw, IE is bound into XP... The subject of the litgation dealt with Win95. By the time the litigation concluded, the OS was outdated...

About the only positive thing that came out of the litigation was that MS had to lighten-up on the strangle-hold that MS had on folks in the OEM channel. Other than that - it is business as usual.

Oh..and the people that did not come off well in testimony....many don't work at MS anymore...


>>
I don't see how they can provide an argument to something they've already lost.
>>

I am sure you will be offended Victor...but the reason you don't see is becuase you don't understand the issues. Your premise assumes that MS lost what you think they lost -AND - assuming that was true - what MS allegedly lost is germane...