Let's see some more cola hypocrisy 1830

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:39:43 -0800, ralph

While it's not true that there's no such thing as an illegal monopoly, it's not true that MS is one.

"Illegal monopoly" means that the monopoly itself is illegal. That is not the case with MS. Their monopoly was legally obtained.

It would be correct to say that MS is a monopoly that acted illegally, but not to say that they are an illegal monopoly.

The monopoly is just something they ARE, not something they DO. No judicial ruling can prevent them from being a monopoly, short of shutting them down completely. Whether they have monopoly power is entirely in the hands of the consumer. If the consumer keeps buying, regardless of any action the government takes, MS will still have monopoly power. There is no way for that to be illegal.

Whether or not MS acts illegaly in maintaining that status has zero to do with whether or not the monopoly itself is legal or not. That's not excusing the behavior, just pointing out the facts.

Other phrases bandied about that are also misleading or plain wrong are "convicted monopolist". A "conviction" can only occur in a criminal trial. The DOJ case was a civil trial, and thus nobody can convicted of anything in a civil case.

"Criminal actions" is also wrong because, even though an action may be against the law, it depends on if it's a criminal law or a civil law. Again, the DOJ case was a civil case, and therefore cannot be criminal.

Continuing to use such phrases shows an inherant lack of ethics and care for the truth. Since the open source comunity prides itself on being ethical and truthful, you might want to think about that before you make such comments.