Microsoft Hatred FAQ 5161

The conclusion that the means were illegal is predicated on the definition of the relevent market as "desktop operating systems for 32-bit x86 computers". Conduct is not illegal unless some law puts people on adequate notice that their conduct is illegal. What law put Microsoft on notice that the relevent market would be defined in the bizarre and almost nonsensical way?

In other words, they believe the rights of Microsoft to do what they please with what is theirs is subservient to some general obligation to help the economy as a whole. I am saying that Microsoft has no obligaiton to the economy as a whole but instead has an obligation to its stockholders. It would be the gravest dereliction of that obligation for Microsoft to sacrifice itself for some general benefit.

It is not theft if you can simply say "no" to the deal and all that happens is that you don't get the product. Your argument is preposterous. If you accept arguments that equate guns with arguments, the next step is that using a gun is a rational response to an argument one doesn't like. Oh wait, you're already there.

If you believe that, then there is no reaching you with reason.

The government created a medium of exchange, but that is not the same as saying it created the wealth that money represents. The government created the money simply as a stand in for the wealth that was created by others.

The government charges you, notionally, for the services it provides. It is somewhat silly to phrase as this as charging you for the privilege of participating in *their* economy. I am familiar with just about every theory for justifying government power, and I know of none that justifies a claim of complete government ownership of the economy other than those that lead to Communism or Totalitariansm.

I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want to live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me know.

If the government prosecutes people for crimes wherein there was no notice whatsoever that their conduct was criminal, it is acting criminally itself. Apparently, in your world the only alternatives are that the government owns everything or that the government owns nothing. As soon as I claim anything is beyond the government's power, I'm an anarchist in your book.

Since when does the DOJ get to make the law? (George Bush's claims to the contrary not withstanding.) The issue is whether the *LAW* put Microsoft on notice. A just law must itself put people on notice as to precisely what conduct consbreastutes a violation of that law.

DS