Replies

And this behavior has already been declared illegal . Microsoft has already signed a consent decree saying they would not do this.

Please show us where the courts have found MS guilty of predatory pricing. I'll wait. Go ahead. Look. Because it's going to be a long time. The courts never found that. Ever.

Please show us where the courts have found MS guilty of predatory pricing

Ah.. the verdict-- which has already been affirmed by the Appealate court. Maybe you're confusing the remedy "break up Microsoft" to the finding "guilty". The remedy was thrown out . The finding of guilt has been affirmed in the appealate court.

In case you missed it, here's a brief history:

May, 1998 suit against Microsoft filed.
October 1998 trial begins
April 2000 Judge Jackson says: "GUILTY"
June 2000 Judge Jackson say: "remedy is breakup"
June 2001 Appeals court rejects Remedy; Affirms verdict. Appeals court says Microsoft is in violation of the Sherman Act
November 2001 Partial settlement reached. (not all states agree)
Spring 2002: Court proceedings continue re: settlement.

Sorry, buts its been PROVEN in a court of law that Microsoft is GUILTY (twice, actually)

Here's another biggie for you:

July 1994 — Microsoft in a consent decree agrees to change contracts with PC makers and eliminate some restrictions on other software makers, ending a Justice Department investigation.

This consent decree signed by Microsoft means that Dell only pays Microsoft for the computers that contain Microsoft products. Dell does not have to pay Microsoft for any royalty on any PC that does not contain a Microsoft product. Not only that Microsoft cannot make it a condition of the contract to limit Dell in any such way.

This actually started it all This consent decree is still in effect. However, Microsoft has violated it, goes to court, gets it a$$ whooped, and gets verdicts handed down that yes, M$ is in violation of its own consent decree, the Sherman Act et al.

And now, M$ is back to its own tricks demanding a royalty against the Dell naked PCs for which it has no legal right. (already proven in court).