From Encarta online.

mo·nop·o·ly [m nópplee ] (plural mo·nop·o·lies) noun

1. ECONOMICS control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service

Forgive me if I ignore any "Microsoft isn't even a Monopoly" posts.

This isn't Econ101, or 'Intro to Systems Development', after all. If there's that great a lack of information, then the discussion can't be fruitful.

Microsoft was convicted of serious illegal behavior on the basis of a mountain of evidence.

Discussion of that conviction, and of the ongoing lawsuit for rememdy, is one of the most imporant things I can imagine.

I will now wait a day or two for responses, then I'll post any comments/rebuttals/statements.

Thanks for reading, this far.

I figured you'd like to have first crack at this. Well, fire away!

I will not be able to respond until late tomorrow, at the earliest. Business trip.

But I *will* respond.

Don't you like Mr. Webster?

"If your CEO had an affair, would you fire him?"/"Ford Doesn't sell 'Chevy' engines, isn't that the same thing?"

But Ford DOES sell GM engines.

I have seem many Ford Trucks with Detroit Diesel engines. Detroit Diesel is owned by GM.

Also ever see a Ford Truck with an Allison Automatic??

I have seen many Fords with this setup.

Also I have seen GM Semi-Trucks with Cummins and Caterpillar Diesel engines.

GM makes an Engine big enough to fit in these trucks.

But not at ONE TIME did GM, Cat, or Cummins tell any truck company they could not sell a competitors engine.

But MS DID tell the Computer Companies they COULD NOT sell products from a competitor.

Does this count as a 'tech' thread?

I'm not sure. I think it's more 'economics' or 'philosophy of capitalism' . . . but I'm pinging the 'tech_index' just in case.

If it doesn't belong, forgive me.

You guys are not interested in discussion. You just want to bash Microsoft. Your entire argument here ignores the fact that judges can and do make mistakes. I've read Penfield Jackson's judgement and it's no wonder the appeals court threw out most of it. It contains almost as many errors as you anti-MS guys post here on FR.

No, MS is not perfect. Neither is any other company. But the hatred you guys feel for MS goes beyond reason. It's sick. Microsoft could produce a cure for cancer and sell it for a nickle a dose, and you'd still be accusing them of nefarious behavior.

The real problem is that the rest of the world does not agree with your assessment of MS products. You really need to get over that. Until you do, you're not able to discuss this subject objectively and look at the possibility that the other side might have some legitimate logic and facts on their side.

I don't have a 'bump' list, so I just went back to old threads on the topic and plucked out names of folks who agreed and disagreed with me.

If you're not interested in this rant, forgive me. I won't do it again!

Ping!

Well, we are still disagreeing over whether Microsoft is a monopoly. The definition that you post I don't think describes a monopoly. If Microsoft "controlled" the industry, then why do they allow Linux to exist?

No, MS is not perfect. Neither is any other company. But the hatred you guys feel for MS goes beyond reason. It's sick.

Actually, it's an obsession. You'd think Bill or Steve stole Dominic's girlfriend or something, with how much he hates them ...

If Microsoft "controlled" the industry, then why do they allow Linux to exist?

Or Apple? Gee ..... what other Competitor to Apple gave them millions of dollars to stay in business, and tried fostering competition?

MICROSOFT. Microsoft gave Apple how many MILLIONS of dollars back in the early 90's to keep them from going belly-up. Yet, Dominic with his "superior intellect" won't acknowledge that fact.

Pity. Maybe someday he'll get over his obsessive-compulsive hatred of anything MS.

Thanks for the ping. Your post is well done and I basically agree. As I said in one of my (now ancient) posts: "No Bill should be above the law!"

BTW, I have been involved with a (pretty one-sided) flame war with Bush2000 today (European Commission's Probe of Microsoft Continues). What is it with that guy? I have been out of the Microsoft wars for a while.

. The definition that you post I don't think describes a monopoly.

Sorry, I meant to say that I don't think the defintion of monoploy, with which I agree, describes Microsoft.

"Microsoft was convicted of serious illegal behavior..."

A "conviction" that was later unanimously overturned on appeal, accompanied by a public slap to the incompetent and biased Judge Jackson who was summarily removed from the case. Moreover, Jackson's absurd order to break up Microsoft was vacated. The ball is now right back in the court of the cry babies.

__________________________________________

Microsoft Breakup Order Overturned

But appeals court upholds finding that company illegally maintained its Windows monopoly.

By Maria Godoy, Tech Live June 28, 2001

In a major victory for the software giant, a US Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned a lower court's order that Microsoft should be split into two separate companies as a remedy for past antitrust law violations.

The seven-judge appeals panel unanimously reversed the finding that Microsoft violated US antitrust law by illegally trying to monopolize the Web browser market. However, the appeals court judges upheld the findings that Microsoft used "anticompetitive means" to maintain its Windows monopoly in the operating system market.

The appeals court faulted District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson for holding "secret meetings" with members of the media in which he made disparaging remarks about Microsoft and its co-founder, Bill Gates. [This is known as an ex parte violation. Very serious, since it involved a denial of due process rights to the defendant -- and yet not one word from you about sanctions against the judge for his "serious illegal behavior." I guess this is ok with you when the crime is perpetrated on someone you don't like.]

The court also faulted Jackson for failing to hold evidentiary meetings before ordering Microsoft to split up as a remedy for its past antitrust law violations.[More denial of due process by Judge Jackson. And still, not one peep from you about this judge's illegal behavior. Nope, you just continue to cite his decision, a decision unanimously overturned on appeal.]

Judge Jackson has been removed from the case. The court vacated the breakup remedy in full and sent the case back to the district court, ordering that a different judge decide how to punish Microsoft. "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the court said.

Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said the company was reviewing the ruling and would comment later.

The Nasdaq has halted trading in Microsoft stock. Shares of Microsoft last traded at $74.96, up $3.82, or 5.37 percent.

The 125-page decision from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is largely in line with expectations from many legal experts who have followed the Justice Department's case against Microsoft. In 1998, the appeals court ruled in Microsoft's favor in a related case.

Some experts have suggested that a weakening of the case might lead antitrust enforcers in the Bush administration to seek a settlement.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its landmark case against Microsoft in 1998. After a 78-day trial, Judge Jackson found in June 2000 that Microsoft holds monopoly power in the market for desktop operating systems with its Windows product. Jackson also found that Microsoft illegally used its monopoly power by integrating its Web browser into Windows in order to combat Netscape's browser. In a verdict issued June 7 last year, Jackson ordered the company split in two.

During oral arguments in Microsoft's appeal of Jackson's verdict in February, the appeals court judges indicated that the DOJ's case against Microsoft was overly broad.

At the time, Judge Douglas Ginsburg raised the possibility of narrowing the trial findings to Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly in personal computer operating systems and throwing out the breakup order.

Forgive me if I ignore any "Microsoft isn't even a Monopoly" posts.

I cannot. Until and unless you answer this question, your entire post is rendered moot. The question is,

On which product or products did/does Microsoft have a "monopoly" on?

Let me know.

Microsoft was convicted of serious illegal behavior on the basis of a mountain of evidence.

Are you talking about the conviction which was thrown out because the judge was found to have serious bias?

Let me know.

excuse me - but there were no illegalities, per se, of the so called Iran / Contra scandal. The supposed DemocRATs' "law" that was supposedly broken never faced the scrutiny of the courts because (they knew) it would have failed to pass muster. Remember, they had to go after Oliver North for accepting a security fence and then even that went away because it was a violation of his rights based on immunized testimony. Don't get swept away in DemocRAT history rewriting such that you actually believe things that aren't true. Because then it makes it hard for people to continue t evaluate your thinking when your supposition is totally flawed.

It is, in fact, controversial whether Microosft is a monopoly by any common-sense meaning of the word. It is VERY easy to get non-Microsoft software. Microsoft cannot control your access to this software. So they are not a monopoly in the Standard Oil or AT&T sense of the word. The theory that Microsoft is a monopoly is novel, and is the product of hard-left radicals in the Clinton DoJ.

Even the "exclusivity" argument is full of holes. The biggest single "brand" of PCs is... no brand at all - anonymous "beige boxes" made of commodity components. Nobody controls what gets loaded on those machines. They are built to customer specifications.

In other words, from two very simple points of view, with two simple arguments, it is easy to make the case that the government has failed to support some very basic assertions. The fact they make these assertions over and over does not make them true, any more than Global Warming or Nuclear Winter or any of an infinite number of Big Lies that people in power push in the press.

"Maybe someday he'll get over his obsessive-compulsive hatred of anything MS."

I'm not holding my breath. MS will walk away from this with barely a scratch. That's when Dominic will really go ballistic. They'll have to throw a net over him.

I tell ya what, you wouldn't hate Microsoft the way you do if you were making money from it. There seems to be the winner group and the sore loser group. Son, you're a sore loser.

I still can't buy a Pepsi at McDonalds.

Ya, but McDonalds food SUCKS.