Microsoft Hatred FAQ 5153

You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread, actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.

Well duh, this thread is about Microsoft.

That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes (such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

The reason is that there is a huge difference between crimes that involve force or fraud and crimes that don't involve any force or fraud. Theft, threats of force, and the like are in a totally different category from purely consensual crimes such as the ones Microsoft was accused of.

There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of actions that I do consider force or fraud. And had Microsoft been convicted for *those* actions (rather than metaphorical use of "market force"), then I would not be defending them. I don't defend them of those charges, which would have been (and is) equally wrong for a monopolist or a non-monopolist.

DS