You want evidence.
That would be nice.
Unless you work for the DOJ or are privy to the highest levels of Microsoft's management decisions, I doubt either of us has any real evidence either way. Yeah, you put the burden of proof on me and that's fine. But I'm looking at patterns of behavior, past and present. If I apply the fact that the key decision makers haven't changed substantially and that they've admitted know wrong to any other area of life (e.g., a neighbor who tries to financially ruin another neighbor, is stopped by the courts, but never admits that he did anything wrong or, perhaps, a nasty dog that bit me and still gowls and barks when I walk by), I wouldn't trust those decision makers.
Fine. You don't trust them. But you don't have any
PROOF that Microsoft is strong-arming ANYBODY. So, your earlier charge from post #13 is bogus.
"Why can't Microsoft complete on the merits of their products and prices rather than strong-arm tactics."
I think it's fine not to trust them. But you're projecting your
feelings when you accuse them of wrongdoing which is not substantiated by the facts.
As for law enforcement being random and unpredictable, that's a much bigger issue than just Microsoft. To a certain degree, I probably agree with you there but that's what we get for letting judges rule the country. If George W. Bush folds and nominates a "moderate", I'm done with him. We need to get judges out of the business of creating laws.
Here, we agree.
Again, I don't hate Microsoft. I simply don't want to see them using their weight to drive competition out of business. It's not even about market share (below 100%) or how much Bill Gates makes for me. But Macs and the threat of Linux have helped drive Microsoft to make their products better and that's a win for the people who do use Microsoft products. Without competition, that just doesn't happen. And that's why anti-competative behavior bothers me so much.
Where's the evidence of anti-competitive behavior? I'd like you to point it out to me. DRM and other content protection mechanisms are a standard means of protecting business investments that go well beyond Microsoft. That's not anti-competitive. It reduces piracy.
If you believe that Microsoft is currently competing on the merits of their products and price rather than using strong-arm tactics, then your answer to my earlier question should be, "They already are." With respect to proof, I'll simply point out that an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. No, my suspicions are not sufficient to find Microsoft guilty of any crime but I'm not a prosecutor and this isn't a trial. I'm judging them on their past behavior the same way we judge Hillary! and John Kerry on their past behavior when they claim to be moderates. It's not as if different people are in charge.
As for my issues with DRM, I don't oppose DRM, per se, but I think that any DRM scheme should be open or freely available and not controlled by Microsoft or any other company that can use their control such standards to squash competition. And propietary standards for players that are not freely available don't help protect IP from what I've seen. They seem to encourage people to develop ways to crack the DRM so they can ignore it. And unless you advocate a war on piracy similar to the war on drugs, turning this into a game of hardball is not the answer.