> BTW, do your comments mean you were against the breakup of AT&T? And that
> you think it has not benefited consumers and shareholders?

AT&T *was* a monopoly, protected by the full force of the United States
government (you know, the guys with all the guns).

Microsoft is not, and never has been, a "monopoly" by any rational
definition.  They simply don't have the ability to force anyone to stop
competing with them.

Contrary to the judge's opinion, the fact that Microsoft has the largest
market share in the PC marketplace is proof that they *don't* have a monopoly
(various competitors own various smaller pieces of the same market).

In order to be a monopoly, you must have the ability to force competitors out
of business.  You can either use the government to provide the force (like
AT&T, the US Post Office, etc.), or you can try to do it Al Capone style.

The browser issue is particularly interesting.  Nobody complained when
Microsoft "bundled" a TCP/IP stack into Windows, even though this "unfairly"
competed with Trumpet, WRQ, and others.  No one complained when Microsoft
bundled a text editor, a calculator, a drawing program, and many other things
that are widely thought of as operating system services, either.  All of
these compete "unfairly" with commercial products.  Why complain about
bundling in the browser?

Also, I'm sure the stockholders from Apple, HP, Sun, etc. will be pleased to
discover they've invested in companies that a US federal judge has just ruled
are "commercially viable".

A couple more links:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-08-99.html
http://reason.com/9903/fe.jd.the.html

And finally (at least read the first two paragraphs for a big laugh):
http://reason.com/9801/ed.vp.html

---
Michael D. Hensley       | mailto:[log in to unmask]
Allegro Consultants Inc. | Visit scenic http://www.allegro.com
408/252-2330             | "Support Bill of Rights Enforcement"