rudedog,
What's your point??? The DOJ case has been mainly
concerned with the net effect on consumers not on
OEM's. The application of anti-trust to the case
has resulted in a finding that recommends increasing
the competition in the desktop PC market for the
benefit of the end-user (consumer). I don't know
anyone shedding any tears for the OEM's, who were
in on a good deal w/M$FT until the baloon burst &
margins collapsed with the advent of thin client
technology.
Look, there has NEVER BEEN a market for PC operating
systems. M$FT was awarded the franchise & kept it.
IMO, the DOJ case clearly shows that that has been
used continuously to the detriment of the consumer.
I think it's fair to say the the consumer is better off
with desktop computing equipment than without it. I
think it's also fair to say that the QUALITY of the
desktop computing experience would be markedly higher
and the prices lower with competition in the PC O/S
market. I will go a step further and say that, IMO,
since the PC hardware is non-proprietary, then the PC
O/S should also be non-proprietary. That being the
case, everyone could 'standardize' on THAT O/S and not
suffer the compatibility qualms inherent with multiple
O/S vendors. This would make the PC more like a
telephone, except for the applications.
I see no point to allowing M$FT to continue the leveraging
of Windows in order to gain them marketshare in all other
computing markets. They have violated the law, and
some remedy must be applied. I vote for expropriating
DOS/Windows/NT (desktop versions only), and donating
the code & IP to a committee (yes, a committee), for the
continued M&E. |
