[Dominic Harr]

Secondly, government-sponsored monopolies such as RBOCs are not created by the Constitution.

'Intellectual Property' laws' are the same -- nowhere in the constitution does it say ideas are 'property', only that the creators have a right to profit off the idea for a limited period of time (7 years, at the time).

The laws that were created by an out-of-control govt, bought and paid for by companies like Disney and MS, created MS's current monopoly.

Yet you like the MS govt-backed monopoly, and not the phone company's.

Because you don't get paid by the phone company.

[Bush2000]

'Intellectual Property' laws' are the same -- nowhere in the constitution does it say ideas are 'property', only that the creators have a right to profit off the idea for a limited period of time (7 years, at the time).

You and others seem to get hung up on the distinction between 'physical property' and intellectual property'. Personally, I think that's a strawman. Whether you call it 'intellectual property' or 'intellectual foobar' is irrelevant to me. All that counts is that the Constitution specifically assigns rights of ownership to those ideas to inventors and protects them for a given period of time.

The laws that were created by an out-of-control govt, bought and paid for by companies like Disney and MS, created MS's current monopoly.

True, but they are the law.

Yet you like the MS govt-backed monopoly, and not the phone company's. Because you don't get paid by the phone company.

MS's so-called "monopoly" isn't backed by the government, Harr. If someone needs a computer -- even an Intel desktop computer -- they can go to other sources besides those that offer MS products. If I wanted telephone service in the 1960s, I had no choice besides the government-backed AT&T. Big difference. But, I don't want to get into an argument about whether it's a monopoly, though, because it's a horrible waste of time and I have better things to do than argue with you when you try to argue what "is is".

I do hold stock in phone companies, Harr. The fact that I receive money/dividends from that stock doesn't mean I support them, either. The reason I support MS is because consumers do have a choice. You don't need to read Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact to realize that you can get a desktop PC without a Windows operating system. I can do it in about 5 minutes over the Web. Thus, the fact that consumers aren't practically forced to buy MS means that there really isn't force involved at all. Or market power.