1) "IF" the Gov broke MS Bill would just get richer because he can split the stocks :)

2) Monopoly? The Gov "LET" AOL and TW merge... But I still don't see a "open" AOL Messenger. Now they own the Cable do you really think AOL will allow another Provider to offer internet on their new cable box they are building? The Gov said they couldn't "Lock" the cable so other companies couldn't get in... BUT the Gov also said "OPEN" your Messenger... hmmmmmm still not open. I really pitty the day AOL puts those nice little cable boxes on top of your TV and you can't get no internet access except for AOL.

3) I feel the Gov needs to back off MS. HELL... They approved the biggest Monopoly right in the middle of fighting MS.

If you read the approval from the FCC - AOL has to open up its Instant Messenger only if it starts providing streaming video services over Time Warner Cable. Once they do this they have 180 days to prove interoperatiblity.

All of this is within the FCC document - http://www.fcc.gov/Burea...rders/2001/fcc01012.doc

Exclusionary contracts: When your overhead is as great as Dell or Compaq then you need to save as much as you can. If a company selling an OS that has a majority of systems and applications programmed for it in the market you are aiming for offers you a significant discount, what do you do, decline? No, you accept and sign your life away because you save that much more on your costs.

Bundling: If you include say, a browser, in the OS and dont increase the price to adjust for that inclusion then why would any one in their right mind pay for a browser that is at best only going to be able to be 'as good'. Unless someone needs functionality that they can't get from the standard install of something on their OS then they won't pay for it. This does one of 2 things. Forces the company to release the browser for free and thus lose money from one of their product lines. If it wasnt the sole product line in the first place anyway. If it was, this either puts them out of business or requires they make more software to compete with products that arent free. The other alternative is that they increase the features of the product and hope people will pay for the added features. Of course, this all goes away when the company who caused them to add the features adds similar features to the browser they are giving away free. It's a no win situation so the only way to make money and stay in business is either find a niche market that will support you, find a bigger company to buy you up, or retreat into a market where the company hasnt bundled a similar product with the OS already.

I would like to make a comment about the "exlusionary contracts" bit.
I build computers for a living. I own a small computer store, building and fixing computers in a small town. I buy OEM's of the Microsoft Operating systems, and have NO PROBLEMS setting up whatever I want on them. I do what the customer wants- "Put on Netscape? Ok, if that is what you want." I am under no "orders" to only put MS products on the systems I build. So, if MS is this big monster, FORCING *all* computer businesses to do these things, why do I get away with it? *I didn't ask for a "contract" to do only MS products!*
The only reason Dell, Compaq, etc fell victim to the contracts is because THEY SIGNED THEM. They didn't have to sign the contracts, LOCKING THEMSELVES into that mess. They wanted a version of MS OSes that was proprietary to their systems (hence the "to be bundled only with a DELL system" on Dell oem software). I could do a contract with MS the same way, if I wanted, but I do NOT want to do that, so I won't.
This means I can build a computer, and sell it with whatever OS I want to put on it, set up the desktop however I want, etc. I don't think MS needs to be punished because some Execs at Dell or wherever made a very stupid decision to go with a "lopsided" contract that favors MS. People need to start accepting responsibility for their own screwups, and quit blaming others for their own failings!

James Wheat, Owner
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

The rules are different for the very large OEM's like Compaq and Dell.

Yes, I know. If the larger OEM's would pay for the Standard OEM windows CDs instead of the "proprietary setup" type, they wouldn't be in the mess they are in (exclusionary contracts). I could get a special deal from MS if I wanted my own setup stuff like the larger companies, but I don't want to do it. I like my freedom! :-)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

First off this case should have never made it as far as it has.
1. How can Microsoft have a Monopoly on the OS market when there are many other OS's to choose from. For instance Linux, Beos, Apple, if you don't like MS then swithch.
2. The Browser market is the same way if you don't like IE then switch to Netscpe or Opera. Netscape by the way is owned by a company that does truly have a monopoly AOL Time Warner. Its not MS's fault that IE is better, hell AOL even uses it with there software. They could use Netscape if they wanted to but they won't because IE is better.
3. Where would computers be today without Microsoft? Not nearly as popular as they are.
4. If you owned a company that makes software would you want the goverment to tell you what you can and can not include with it. Thats just bulls***, The only reason Microsoft was picked on to begin with is companys like Oracle, and Netscape can't make software good enough to compete so they cried foul.

I totally agree with your post. This is NOT a monopoly. And like you said, a monopoly only takes place when people have no choice of another service. There is nothing stopping anyone from running any other operating system, and there are others to choose from.

The judge most likely is one of those computer illiterate people who probably doesn't even know how to turn a computer on.

Microsoft is so popular because it IS the better operating system. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be using it.

So, wait, Microsoft is not a monopoly because there are other OS's to choose from (Linux, etc...) but AOL is a monopoly even though there *are* other choices (Earthlink, MSN, broadband, local ISP's)? That makes a whole lot of sense.

You can't just be pro-Microsoft and claim they are not a monopoly for a made-up reason and then claim another company that you don't like is a monopoly for the exact opposite reason.

AOL was forced to use IE in the contract they signed, so they could get placed on the desktop and bundled with the OS. IE was a total rip-off of Netscape. Netscape was here first when M$ decided to "cut off their air supply". Netscape is, was a good browser. 90% of IE is loaded at windows startup... Opera Is better than both of them.

Man! Where does M$ get all these card-carrying PR robot???

But that's just it... they signed it. AOL signed the contract. It's absolutely rediculous to think that Microsoft wouldn't put something in the contract that would benefit them as well... that's what business deals are: mutually beneficial. If you think otherwise, you're sadly mistaken.

I will start by saying that I don't consider AOL an ISP I consider them a content provider and as far as I am concerened the only other CONTENT PROVIDER is Compuserve and that's owned by AOL. Yes MSN could be viewed as a Content Provider but atleast with them you are still basicly browsing the internet with a browser, when you use AOL you use there proprietary software and if you want to go to a certain area like games or entertainment you end up in an area created by AOl and they filter out what they don't think is useful. Most of the time if you go to an AOL area it takes you to a page that promotes something that AOL Time Warner owns. An ISP on the otherhand lets you browse the web the way you want. Your not stuck with AOL's version of what they think you want to see. I am not saying that AOL is bad I think AOL is great for the beginer or for that matter someone who wants everything filtered out for them. Hey they must be doing something right hell they almost have 30 million subscribers. Most of there subscribers though are not your computer experts, most of them are newbies that do not know any better and if they were showed the REAL internet would probably leave the service.

Is MS a monopoly?

Dictionary.com: Monopoly, Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).

So does MS have a monopoly over the computer OS market? The question is, can you switch? Yes. So how can it be a monopoly in the OS market?
In the Office market, can you switch? Yes? Then once again they are not a monopoly.

Yes MS has done a lot of very anti-competative things and I do not agree with it, but are they a monopoly? By definition, no!

One of the things that is at issue here is that MS's IE can make calls to windows features that other programs cannot make.

I'm still on the fence on this issue. I don't like a lot of their strong arm tactics but then again I also think that it's their code and they can do what ever the heck they want with it.

Could you please show where AOL was "Forced" to sign a contract?

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

That's right, but you can't use that as a reason to say M$IE is better. They don't use M$IE in AOL software because M$IE is better, they use it to get AOL on the windows desktop.

It's "popular" because you have to use it if you want to use most apps. I think windows is a pretty bad operating system, but I run it because I have to if I want to be able to run the majority of programs out there.

Odd, I don't recall anything about the appealate court's ruling that said a breakup was too harsh. All I read was that jackson was biased so the penalty phase would be decided by another judge. Are we reporting news here or are we spreading propaganda?

For what it's worth I live quite close to MS headquarters in Redmond (actually they are spreading to Issaquah at the moment. Redmond is built out.) I have many neighbors that are MS employees. If you listen to them talk you would be quite concerned about our little neighbor here in Seattleville. Microsoft knows that it must dominate the internet to survive in the long run. Watch as your dollars help Bill succeed in his little quest. Penfield Jackson was right about Bill you know. There's something about men who hold their hand stuffed into the jacket front that truely scares me.

If MS is not broken up, It will someday be the only game in town and It may be sooner than you think. It is sad indeed, that many want this Draconian enity to flourish unchecked. If Open Source and the GPL can be called virul or pac-man in nature, then MS deserves the title of Borg. At the rate they will need to bundle new functions into thier upcoming OS's (to keep up the rate of growth they enjoy). Third party software will be in big trouble in a couple more release's of MS OS's. Face the facts, most user will not spend money on Third party software when its included in OS. Even if it's substandard. Where will it stop? Allowing MS to go unchecked will not be to anyone's best interest in the long run. Once MS has literally destroyed or assimulated the Third party markets, MS will stagnate and innovation will no longer occur. Thier will not be any incentive to do so. All you need to do is look past MS's marketing hype and your own nose to see the truth.

Really, people.

The issue of bundling software is a moot point at best. Although it seems like price undercutting, how else do operating systems really get better? One can only get so much stability and multitasking.

(Before we get off on side tangents on how little MS products have of those things, keep in mind that it's RAM and trying to run too many programs that causes most of a computer's problems, NOT the operating system.)

So. How, then, do companies like Microsoft make operating systems better? Hardware limitations don't make GUI upgrades feasible, especially if they have to cater to the lowest common consumer denominator. Frankly, I'm surprised they got alpha blending into Win2K, or scrolling menus into Win98. And yes, while those are just pieces of eye candy, there's not a whole lot more that operating systems can add--unless they turn to adding standalone programs and work on integrating them as part of the OS.

So Microsoft integrated (and let's not bicker over the degree of integration, either, folks) IE into Win98. Netscape, obviously, wasn't very happy about that, but I think it was their mistake to spend money on lawyers with a dubious outcome at best while releasing crappy browsers. I've not heard of anyone in the web development field, really, who likes version 4.x. It only adds to my argument that v6 took so long to release, as well, and was still of substandard quality. (Standards support, anyone?) So while Microsoft did tie their browser, perhaps illegally, I don't think that their astounding growth of market share was due only to the fact that it came on the computer--but, rather, that they also made a superior product.

Now, MS is getting flak over their inclusion of other technologies into WinXP. Smart Tags have a good place in Office XP as web integration, but putting them into IE6 was a faux pas that Microsoft will trip over should they force them in (last I heard, that won't be happening... yet.) But an MP3 encoder? That's pretty stupid. I can get free ones online legitimately, and that really makes arguments about stifling competition a waste of breath. It's enhancements like these that people pay for, ESPECIALLY the consumer. They don't care about reliability and stability over ease of use and features. Professionals are a different story, but it's not like those last simply disappear, either. They're just as important.

Some cars "bundle" seat covers as standard options. Some phones "bundle" caller ID displays, when other manufacturers make them separately. This isn't illegal. Why, then, is the inclusion of software? In that second example, the consumer will buy a separate caller ID display if they want to keep their phone--as I will, if I want to, download and use Winamp instead of Windows Media Player.

It's all about preference.

Really, people.

The issue of bundling software is a moot point at best. Although it seems like price undercutting, how else do operating systems really get better? One can only get so much stability and multitasking.

(Before we get off on side tangents on how little MS products have of those things, keep in mind that it's RAM and trying to run too many programs that causes most of a computer's problems, NOT the operating system.)

So. How, then, do companies like Microsoft make operating systems better? Hardware limitations don't make GUI upgrades feasible, especially if they have to cater to the lowest common consumer denominator. Frankly, I'm surprised they got alpha blending into Win2K, or scrolling menus into Win98. And yes, while those are just pieces of eye candy, there's not a whole lot more that operating systems can add--unless they turn to adding standalone programs and work on integrating them as part of the OS.

So Microsoft integrated (and let's not bicker over the degree of integration, either, folks) IE into Win98. Netscape, obviously, wasn't very happy about that, but I think it was their mistake to spend money on lawyers with a dubious outcome at best while releasing crappy browsers. I've not heard of anyone in the web development field, really, who likes version 4.x. It only adds to my argument that v6 took so long to release, as well, and was still of substandard quality. (Standards support, anyone?) So while Microsoft did tie their browser, perhaps illegally, I don't think that their astounding growth of market share was due only to the fact that it came on the computer--but, rather, that they also made a superior product.

Now, MS is getting flak over their inclusion of other technologies into WinXP. Smart Tags have a good place in Office XP as web integration, but putting them into IE6 was a faux pas that Microsoft will trip over should they force them in (last I heard, that won't be happening... yet.) But an MP3 encoder? That's pretty stupid. I can get free ones online legitimately, and that really makes arguments about stifling competition a waste of breath. It's enhancements like these that people pay for, ESPECIALLY the consumer. They don't care about reliability and stability over ease of use and features. Professionals are a different story, but it's not like those last simply disappear, either. They're just as important.

Some cars "bundle" seat covers as standard options. Some phones "bundle" caller ID displays, when other manufacturers make them separately. This isn't illegal. Why, then, is the inclusion of software? In that second example, the consumer will buy a separate caller ID display if they want to keep their phone--as I will, if I want to, download and use Winamp instead of Windows Media Player.

It's all about preference.

Ok so if Microsoft are split up into 2 or more differnet groups lets say: Microsoft OS Group, Microsoft Applications (Office etc) Group and Microsoft Internet Group (IE, OE etc) then what is stoping Microsoft OS Group making a deal with Microsoft Applications and Microsoft Internet Groups and putting all the software in the OS anyways? at the end of the day they will still be the same company just differnet departments! i bet any amount of money that if MS is broken up you will still see IE, OE and loads of other applications, etc made my the different departments of the new Microsoft in their next OS!

thats just my 2p :)

>>Once MS has literally destroyed or assimulated the Third party
>>markets, MS will stagnate and innovation will no longer occur.

Your arguement defeats itself. If Microsoft becomes a Goliath so powerful that it no longer deems innovation necessary, the proverbial David will come along and develop new, innovative products that will start a whole new cycle. After all, how do you think Microsoft overtook the Big Blue Sleeping Giant (IBM) who thought THEMSELVES too important to innovate? IBM was, after all, the only game in town for a while there. How quickly people forget...

Actually, part of the break-up order, if I'm not mistaken, made it ligally impossible for the baby-Bills to make exclusive deals like that with one another, while not offering the same deals to other companies as well... which is why the break-up order is a piece of s***. The idea that a company can't make exclusive deals that it believes will benefit both sides is repulsive, and is the truest form of Socialism ever. The leftist "it's not fair" attitude has absolutely no place in business. Business isn't about being fair, it's about being successful (which, incidentally, isn't 'fair' either)

er... l*e*gally.... :)

mikekol, I just have one thing to say........AMEN Brother !! :)

AHMEN! I'm tired of these "progressive" communist democrats who whine "but that isn't 'fair'". Didn't their mom's ever tell them that life wasn't fair?

You are 100% correct. Why should the gov't be able to tell them what they can and cannot offer in THEIR OWN software!? Do they tell ford that they cannot put a 12 cd changer in their car? You don't HAVE to use windows! You can use what ever the hell you want, no one FORCES some one to use windows. MS should be allowed to put what ever they want and block what ever software they want from windows because IT'S THEIR OS! If Netscape doesn't like it they can make THEIR OWN OS or just stop whineing.

Whose OS did IBM use again? I've forgotten... ;]

Socialism? I've always heard it called "anti-trust"...

Well, firstly, sure there's not much more to an OS than stability and multitasking, but M$ still hasn't gotten the first one right. Secondly, if you're saying they've already gotten the OS perfect, they should just stop making updates and move on to other products. Why is it right to make the consumer to keep paying for the OS when the version they have is already perfect? As for your Netscape theory, people get that wrong so often. Netscape 6's standards support is far better than any other browser out there for any OS(M$IE 5.5 isn't even close, I think Opera is #2), it's just not quite 100% like they had promised previously. The real problem with Netscape 6 was that Mozilla was still early beta software, and quite crash-prone. Mozilla is nearing completion now though, as is Netscape 6.1, and it's rock solid.

the key issues as far as i can see are that:

the browser bundling (and other apps bundling) is a none issue (as it should be now as pretty much ALL os's come with a browser and other bundled apps).

jackson is off the case. this is good, he has to be the most biased judge in america still bitter from a previous case he was on against microsoft (browser related again i believe) that microsoft had again had his results overturned in the Appeals court.

Remaining issues against microsoft pretty much all relate to its contracts regarding how people (pc builders/isps etc) can distribute microsoft products.

now the problem here is that it seems these days that AOL owns most of the competing products. BUT how good is AOL a witness now after the leak of those internal memos about how AOL would react to Win XP?

The only other kindof issue was the lack of competition to Windows. Interestingly, linux may turn out to be a product that makes microsoft most happy. afterall, with linux becoming so popular in the server/appliance market and with attempts to also bring it to the desktop, there are certainly arguments that linux and its business model CAN compete against microsoft.

Im from UK, so im no expert on US law (or even uk law actually) - but im guessing there isnt much of a case left against microsoft. Breaking microsoft up makes no sense at all now that the issue of bundling has been cleared and I dont really see anything else that could hurt microsoft either.

Perhaps now they can go after more important monopolies like GE.

It appears they are still going after Microsoft. They just won't be splitting them up. Although I don't really see anything other than a break up harming Microsoft in a big way.

I would rather they go after the Oil Companies....gas prices have dropped since "inquiries" started, but a full-blown investigation would be nice. Or the monopoly Apple has on Apple hardware and software, or Vince McMahon's wrestling monopoly (hehe)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I'm sure most of us were expecting this judgement... at least those who were following the case. I'm glad that the appeals court DID agree that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws, but did not agree with Jackson's order to have the company split. In the world of computer software, there are obvious advantages to having the same company that writes the operating system also write software for the system. It results in software that is usually well-coupled with the OS itself. When Microsoft doesn't make software that you like (or are willing to pay for), then you can always (so long as the government keeps tabs on MS) turn to third party software. Microsoft's dominance is reliant almost completely on their ability to bundle additional software with Windows. Their massive amount of wealth is another major asset, but not nearly as powerful as their bundling strategy. If it can be bundled with Windows for free, Microsoft can dominate it... which is why you will see MS dominate the software market to a much higher degree than it can ever dominate another market.
I use Microsoft software... I like it. (Though I'm not too big a fan of some of their practices, though I do understand their reasons) I also use Unix at times... I like it, too. Each has its charms. Niether is better, though sometimes one does one thing better than the other. Kind of like screwdrivers... a phillips screwdriver isn't "better" than a slotted screwdriver... they're just different. :)

In conclusion, I'm just glad that Microsoft wasn't stuck with Jackson's poor order, but at the same time the judiciary has told Microsoft that they can't do anything they want. This was something of a slap on the wrist and a "Don't do it again." Just what they need. Now, let's see what happens as a result of Microsoft's new corporate licensing model as well as any hot air from product activation.

(If you dont agree with something I said, please, be civil... I much prefer a reasonable discussion... I'm sure you would, too) :)

First of all, I disagree with your opinions on bundling, especially the way M$ does it. I think it is illegal, and should not be permitted. Secondly, we don't know yet if this was a slap on the wrist or not, it's not over. It wasn't overturned, it was merely sent back to the previous court with a new judge. The guilty verdict stands, but the punishment may (or may not) be changed. They could still be broken up.

Yeah right. What about all the 100,000,000,000 different versions of LinSux out there bundling hmmmm, lemme see... NetScrape, various FTP, IRC and just about every other damn thing you can think of into THEIR product???? Thats ok though because you are a commie at heart and don't think that anyone should make money from software. Go back to your Warez trading and STFU.

Do they tell computer manufacturers that they can't put the linux distribution on if they remove any of the bundled programs? Do they tell them they can't put a linux distribution on any machine if they don't put it on all of them? Do they tell them that they aren't allowed to put other programs on that are competition to any of those that are included? Are any of the included programs locked in to the OS so that even if you don't use them you have them there wasting hard drive space and memory? I think all of this demonstrates how Micro$oft's bundling differs from the bundling with Linux distros. Where in my other post did I even mention Linux, or anything about opensource or free software anyway? For your information, although I have used Linux at various times in the past, I'm currently typing this from Windows2000. I'm using Netscape, as always, yet I have to keep M$IE on here even though I'm not using it. Also, how much do you want to bet that some of the money that I paid for Windows2000 went into M$IE development? Sure they give it away for "free", but you can't think that they develop it for free, the money has to come from somewhere. I don't have a problem with people making money on software, I have a problem with illegal monopoly behavior like this.

Wow, you guys look at it in a very strange way, I cant stand some of the ANTI "M$" people on this site. You people dont like windows? then dont use it. No one is forcing it down your throat, there are tons of alternative Operating System. In the unices specifically, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS, linux and so on. The belieft is that MS is an evil company because they force people to use there products, no one forces anyone to do anything, it is just practical for MS to include IE in there Operating System, the internet is a tool used every day by many many windows owners, IE is included just for ease, so that people dont have to go online and find a browser and spend hours downloading it, MS never specifically told anyone not to download netscape... think of it this way, When I buy a Sony TV, the remote control package includes, Sony Batteries for it, do you think that Sony should be sued for a monoply since they dont provide panasonic or duracel batteries with there product?

Dont get me wrong I am not a die hard MS fan, I use and like many of there products, if I was ever unahppy with one of them I could always get a program with similar features from a different software company..

anyway not to get off base, the point is THAT MS has done nothing wrong by bundling their software with there operating system, in fact I think it has made it much easier for the end user which is what it all comes down too. And as for Netscape b****ing about the fact that IE is bundled with windows, I want to tell them to get their heads out of their a** and build a descent browser then I'll come back!

Dave

Or AT&T

It is not a matter of like or dislike. The debate here is that what they are doing is illegal. Do you understand?

It is not a debate what software I'm using nor a debate on what software you like. Yes, they do make some products that are good, and some that are bad...as with any company. Whether that is a software company or a car company.

The POINT is that certain techniques they use are illegal. If you're a die hard MS fan, then it is very easy for you to oversee certain things MS is doing wrong.

Next time, write something worthy instead of: "If you don't like their products don't use them."

Just want to add that I didn't in particular point you out in all my points, but rather directed that to the general people.

Are they doing something illegal.....judges seem to think so.
Is bundling applications illegal? Hell no! How stupid is this! Why can't a company bundle additional programs with it? When you buy Borland's C++ Builder...guess what....you get Delphi, JBuilder and HotMetal Pro 5.0 bundled with it. Is this illegal? When you buy CuteFTP you get CuteHTML...etc etc etc. Why is this illegal?

What people don't seem to understand is that the internet is very much integrated with the other usages of a computer.

I haven't followed this and don't really care too much but in reading your comments I wonder exactly what it is MS have done. I know the are said to "monopolise" the market but it seems a bit general. Does anyone argueing here know exactly what they are arguing about ??
No disrespect meant however, I would just like some clarification !?!?

First off, the whole $ thing in the MS name is really old and stupid, get over it. Secondly, they are a good capitalistic business firm that is making a lot of money. If I were in Bill's shoes back in the 70's I would have done the same exact thing. He's out to make money, it's a business. Software isn't free and I wouldn't be a computer programmer if it was free. I need to make a living and I need to put food on the table. So God bless Microsoft, Lord knows I would do the same thing had I the opportunity.

No,

the most important one to go after is the electric companies, we are getting killed in CA :-(

Please tell me exactly which practices that MS employ's that you specifically consider Illegal.

-Dave.

You're right then. California is so rich and has problems with electric. Hope everything gets better for you all there.

Sorry, but you guys in CA are the ones that fux0red it up for yourselves. It's your problem, not ours.

the DOJ says it is so, and they have spent a lot of time reading and listening to lots of witnesses. You on the other hand have not.

Let me see:

1. exclusionary contracts

2. OEMs.

3. ISPs

4. EarthLink

5. Gateway

6. Compaq

7. Intel.

8. Netscape and Opera.

9. Contracts that force people to NOT use Netscape.

10. AOL was forced NOT to use Netscape in exchange for desktop space in the OS.

11. M$ refusing to make office for the mac blackmail Apple into adopting IE as its default browser.

12. Internal documentation (the most harmful to M$) that said stuff like:

"Stab the baby!"
"So you want me to stab the baby?"
"Yes, stab the baby."

and

"Lets see Netscape charge for their browser when we give ours away for free. We'll remove their air supply!"

13. They also where caught lying through their teeth in court, and produced fake evidence.

14. Bill Gates is also an evasive spoiled brat:

Did you write this e-mail? "Importance: High."

"No," Gates said curtly.

"No?"

"No, I didn't type that."

Then who did?

"A computer."

15. The truth is out there. Do the research.

-----

Brian, I sent you an e-mail!
Where are you, I want to hang off your coattails?!?

Please pull your head out of your a** and look around. Nobody forces anybody to do anything? Christ, go talk to Dell about putting Netscape on the Dell systems. Ask them what Microsoft told them. The entire court case revolved around Microsoft telling computer manufacturers what they could and could not put on the hard drives.

Damn you Microsoft lovers are biased. It's totally incredible.

Wonderfully told. Has anyone figured out what happenned to the Wing Commander series? Remember Chris Roberts? Microsoft bought him from Origin Systems to get the publishing rights for Wing Commander. They found out Chris didn't own them so paid him to sit on Mercer Island for a couple of years just to make sure he didn't produce products for Origin. Chris finally got Bill's permission to start Digital Anvil and produce mediocre clones of Wing Commander for Microsoft (Starlancer). You'll notice that Starlancer kind of sucked. Chris's heart wasn't into it. He stated that he wanted to produce more Wing Commander games but daddy Bill had him under contract.

And on and on the saga goes.....

Yeah, it's the tree hugging liberals that shut down many of the power plants in CA. Now they whine that they cant make their toast in the morning...... Waaa Waaa.

We are the Borg. We will add your technology to ours. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Oh, I think you may have misinterpreted the statement I made. When I said "if Microsoft can bundle it, they can dominate it" ... I didn't mean they are allowed or should do it... I meant that if they can bundle it with windows then that gives them the ability to dominate the market. Sorry if my statement was confusing. :)

That sucks. I loved the Wing Commander series, especially IV. Prophecy wasn't all that bad, but not as good as IV. I've been wondering if a new one would be released any time soon. I guess not huh? :-(

And it is because Dell and the others SIGNED, of their own free will, those exclusionary contracts that caused all of their problems. If they wanted to be able to put other software on, they should have said "No, Thanks anyway" to those contracts. They could still get OEM software, just not at the major discount they enjoy now.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I do not think you actually answered the posting above you. Reread what was posted to you, and post a new answer, as I also would like to know your beliefs on this.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com