Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
You're overlooking another thing that Microsoft does: it demands the
/exclusive/ right to place its OS on a computer vendor's machine. It's
either all-or-nothing with them.
That's no different from what Coca-Cola and Pepsi do. I don't hear
you screaming about them coercing people.
I don't recall either of those companies being convicted of
anti-trust violations, then after large political contributions
being allowed to continue with business-as-usual.
http://www.theregister.com/2004/01/20/microsoft_gets_green_light/
My point exactly. You are supporting my position. One of the things
that MicroSoft got into trouble for was making the OS actively
look for competitor's code, and refusing to execute it. Various
versions of Win.. have examined programs to try to detect certain
competitor's code, and refuse to perform certain actions for exactly
those programs. Has nothing to do with the current discussion.
What got them into trouble in Europe was keeping certain internal
versions of system calls undocumented, but allowing their own
software to use them, thus making competitor's applications run
more slowly. Also not significant for this particular discussion.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
