I resemble that remark!
Actually, I think this article puts it mildly.
Am beginning to think there's a special spot reserved in a very hot place for those upper leaders involved with a fraction of Redmond's infuriating fiendishness.
Funny, I can go online right now and order a computer sans operating system. This is an old axe he's grinding here, worn dull.
If Microsoft breaks the law, they should be prosecuted. I believe there was a trial ... but I do not recall too much wrong-doing being proven.
If the government passes legislation to benefit Microsoft, than that is un-American. I believe there was a trial ... in which the US government tried to punish Microsoft.
The way I see it, Microsoft competes, within the letter of the law, and trounces all opponents. But the opponents are still out there, so that all the Microsoft haters can use the opposing software, if they wish. Why cry about that?
I'm a UNIX guy. But people who hate Microsoft really irk me. Businesses which follow the law should be allowed to thrive if the marketplace delivers profits to the business.
That's capitalism. I'm a conservative. Do the math.
Obvious political bribery going on there it seemed to me.
Given the fact that Linux won out on that one, I can't help but wonder of those hundreds of millions will ever materialize(?)
Naturally, everyone knew that this situation had to be an Evil Monopoly. A huge antitrust suit was cranked up, costing the taxpayers a vast fortune, employing generations of lawyers as it plodded through the courts. Guess what? IBM's "monopoly" evaporated as soon as a new generation of lower-cost "minicomputers" came onto the market and began offering small amounts of computer power at prices that medium sized businesses could afford. Amdahl/Fujitsu cloned the IBM mainframe and began to skim the cream off the mainframe market. By the late Seventies, the microprocessor and integrated circuit had made it possible for small startups like Altair to introduce early personal computers. One of these startups, Apple Corp., introduced a model that became the most popular of its time. IBM, already a shruken remnant of its old self, observed Apple's success and introduced its PC design. Aha, said all the pundits: IBM is "copying" Apple by giving the market what it wants, "embracing and extending" so that it could re-establish its lost "monopoly".
The threat of an IBM monopoly on PC's evaporated once again as dozens of small manufacturers cloned the IBM design. Like Linus Torvalds today, young Bill Gates stepped in bto produce software that would break any incipient IBM monopoly in that area too.
And the rest, as the liberals would have us forget, was history.
Period.
These concepts are not new. Monopolistic practices are 'uncapitalistic', and 'assaults on the free market'.
Those claiming otherwise here just show how far FR has fallen, and how 'collectivists' have so twisted the language to claim that they are conservatives.
MS did not 'win', they were convicted of the economic equivilant of assault and murder. They are now under a serious anti-trust agreement and are facing tens of billions of dollars in additional penalties as the 140+ private lawsuits based on the conviction move forward.
Words and truth clearly mean nothing to those willing to defend MS's criminal behavior.
They lost, but claim victory. They ignore the evidence, and claim innocence.
This is almost as entertaining as watching Saddam declare victory, and claim innocence!
It's funny, clearly the MS-only workers have plenty of time to spin their MS FUD here, while we Java developers are up to our eyeballs in new work!
I "hate" MS because they use coercion, fraud, purposeful breach of contract and other illegal means to attack the free market. As a free-market conservative, I am against attacks on the free market.
And to defend these illegal, monopolistic practices is certainly *not* a conservative position. You can't completely redefine economics just for your purposes!!!
Well, you can, but don't be too surprised when people laugh at you . . .