Microsoft Hatred FAQ berkeleyunix 5168
David Schwartz That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? When you are a virtual monopoly, it is at least unlawful. The Sherman Anti-trust act as well as the...
Not at all. The conclusion that the means were illegal was because *they worked*. If MS didn't have monopoly power, the people they were dealing with would have laughed at them.
You do like straw men, don't you? Nowhere in the what I said does the word "help" appear; you pulled it out of thin air, and what you said in general has *nothing* to do with what you quoted above. The statements don't contradict each other in any way, and both happen to be true.
Yup, we're there - and you brought us there, by referring to federal judges as "criminals pointing guns".
Of course, there are lots more straw men in this argument. I didn't mention guns at all - you manufactured that from nothing. Theft doesn't have to involve guns. Hell, it doesn't even have to involve the knowledge of the victim, which is the case here. Everyone buying a system from those that MS bullied paid for an MS OS, whether they got one or not, and wether they knew it or not - and MS got the money. They didn't even realize they were being robbed, so saying "no" was never an option.
That is true. A law *must* put a reasonable person on notice of precisely what conduct it prohibits and what it does...
Another straw man. Saying "the government owns the wealth that was created by others" is not the same thing as saying "the government owns the economy".
Of course you aren't familiar with it. Statists seldom admit that their system means the government owns the economy.
You couldn't be more wrong. Then again, that's nothing new.
Yet *another* straw man. I do hope you enjoy arguing with yourself. I never said the government owning nothing was an alternative. Nor did I say you were an anarchist.
In that case, we hav an *awful* lot of unjust laws, because laws seldom disallow "precise" behavior. Which is the only rational way for a system of laws to work. Requiring that the law predict *everything* that someone might do to harm others and explicitly listing all those cases is silly. Instead, you outline a clbutt of actions and tag them all as illegal. That's why we have laws against buttault and battery and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly power in an unfair manner.
-- Independent WWW-Perforce-FreeBSD-Unix consultant, email for more information.
Linux groups from Newsgroups