Microsoft Hatred FAQ 5156
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:47:43 -0700, T Beck
No they didn't. They didn't have a monopoly -- they didn't even have a product. (Lying to IBM, while unethical, is not against the law.)
Microsoft's success is directly attributable to one thing: the US Department of Justice was investigating IBM for abuse of *their* monopoly position, and where threatening to split IBM up.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's...
Since the DoJ back in the 1970s actually had teeth, IBM was seriously concerned to not only obey the law, but also been seen to obey the law. So even though they were quite capable of creating their own operating system for the PC, they went out and licenced a third-party product.
Unfortunately, in IBM's rush to sign an agreement quickly, they allowed Microsoft to pressure them into a licence where they paid for every PC that they shipped whether or not it had DOS on it.
It isn't okay. It is anti-compebreastive behaviour, and should be discouraged.
That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even encouraged when done by small businesses in a compebreastive market can easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist or duopolist in an uncompebreastive market.
-- Steven.
Linux groups from Newsgroups