“Anyone who wants to operate as a monopoly has to deal with the fact that many jurisdictions have adverse law about that, and handle it.”
________________________________________________________
Microsoft is not a monopoly. If you have no choice but to buy a product or service (e.g. cable or telephone service given exclusive rights by the government) then that is a monopoly. If Microsoft is close to a monopoly, it is because people voluntarily chose their product over their competitors.
As Alan Greenspan stated, “businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal” by antitrust laws “until they hear the judge’s verdict.”
The EU Commission decision is arbitrary and legal piracy.
> As Alan Greenspan stated, “businessmen have no way of
> knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal”
> by antitrust laws “until they hear the judge’s verdict.”
In this case, however, MS heard the verdict 4 years ago,
and the fine is for failing to comply with the court’s
orders. This is not a surprise fine. MS has literally
admitted that much.
When the Court of First Instance (or whatever the new
Euro collective calls it) handed down their decree, MS
need to then decide to comply or cut off Europe. They
did neither.
> Microsoft is not a monopoly.
They were dominant. They are trying to become a monopoly.
And they are using bribes and extortion to do so.
Their conduct in the OOXML standards effort has been
particularly reprehensible. I use MS products.
I would like to never buy any again.
_______
Do not confuse MS with Reardon Steel.