Re: Boycott Microsoft

[don.brown@cesoft.com (Donald Brown)]

In article <3561c813.7318610@198.0.0.100>, nhughes@sunflower.com says...
> On Tue, 19 May 1998 18:20:33 -0500, don.brown@cesoft.com (Donald
> Brown) wrote:
> 
> <s>
> 
> >If, when this was added to the OEM contract, Compaq had said "This is 
> >unacceptable and we won't sign that contract", MS would have said "Enjoy 
> >your going out of business sale."
> 
> 
> What would stop Compaq from installing OS2, Linux, BE or whatever?
> Could it possibly be that people actually want WInodws, and not some
> other OS?  If M$ was a monopoly (which it isn't), then it would be so
> because it is what people want. 

MS is a monopoly in operating system, in part because of what people 
want.  It's also because of the desire for standardization, to some 
extent it's a monopoly because it's a monopoly.

> That's where all this monopoly crap breaks down.  I and everyone else
> can buy any of a dozen computer architectures with a few more
> different OS's anytime we want.  On top of that, We can use an FTP
> client and download at least 4 different internet browsers, install
> them and forget that IE exists.   Monopoly my ass.

You can.  Most won't.  The market of yous is minute.  Not enough to make 
enough of a difference.  Windows is a monopoly, or at least a virtual 
monopoly.

Now, I don't believe in actions to break up the monopoly.  I think any 
attempt to break up the market would do more harm than good.

What I object to, and what I think is clearly illegal, is when Microsoft 
uses that OS monopoly/virtual monopoly/overwhelming marketshare to force 
competing products in other markets out of the market and to create 
conditions where there is no ability to succeed because your competitor 
is Microsoft.

I believe that has happened, but I'm willing to leave it to the courts.  
At the very least Microsoft skirted the edges of that, and Microsoft 
needs to understand that is not acceptable.

Donald