Let's see some more cola hypocrisy 1832

On 19 Mar 2005 06:38:23 -0800, Daeron

No, actually, they were not. You will not find the word "guilty" anywhere in the findings of fact. It can't. Apart from, as I already said, the case is a civil one, rather than a criminal one. The case was settled prior to a final judgement.

Show me *ONE*, just one ruling or judgement in this case where the word "guilty" is found.

MS's monopoly was not illegally obtained, and the DOJ never argued that. In fact, they went out of their way to say that MS having a monopoly was NOT illegal.

You're simply wrong on both accounts. MS's monopoly is not illegal, and MS was not found "guilty" of anything because it was a) a civil case, not a criminal one and b) successfully appealed and then settled.

No, they were not. Even if you consider the pre-appeal findings, MS was never found guilty of illegally obtaining their monopoly, since that was never argued and MS was never accused of that. Judge Jackson *DID* find them to have abused their already existing, and legally obtained monopoly power, but that was successfully appealed.

That's a complaint filed by eLeaders. It's not fact, it's allegation. eLeaders interpret the findings of fact this way, and such an interpretation has not been found true by a court.

In fact, the findings of fact do not say anything of the kind. Having Monopoly power does not equate to Monopolizing, which has a very explicit legal definition.

First, that's a judgment, which is a civil finding for damages, not a criminal finding of guilt. However, the above is not counter to what I said. They were found to have acted illegally, not that their monopoly was illegal. There is nothing in that judgement, or the findings of fact that states MS's monopoly is illegal.

You are arguing something I did not. I was arguing that no legal action, short of shutting down a monopolist can take that monopoly away. Only the consumer can.

Once again, *NOTHING* a court of law can order, short of shutting a company down completely, can take a monopoly away from a monopolist. Only consumers can do that.

Monopolization has a very specific legal meaning, and simply having a monopoly does not meet that. That law was designed to prevent multiple corporations from acting illegally to obtain a joint monopoly. In effect, conspiracy to Monopolize.

The please explain to me why under the democratic Clinton administration, the DOJ never accused MS of Monopolizing or attempting to Monopolize? Why did they bring an "abuse of monopoly power" case, rather than a criminal Monpolization case?

The answer is, as the DOJ has saind many times. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Monopolizing, or attempting to Monopolize is, and they are not the same thing.

The only one lying here is you, Daeron. What you have stated here is flatly untrue, and nothing you'e said here proves otherwise.