They seek to dismantle the [...] technology industry...
John,
I'm not quite sure that I understand this viewpoint. From what I understand, Microsoft is quite welcome to be successful even to the point of being a monopoly. However, once a monopoly, there are certain things that, according to law, they are not allowed to do. Using monopoly power in one market to gain a monopoly in another, for example.
Now, one can certainly argue the reasonableness of that law, but I'm not quite sure that it makes sense to engage in ad hominem attacks on government employees (of which I am one, I must admit) simply for doing what they believe to be their jobs. Certainly government employees are criticised enough for not doing their jobs -- which is it to be? :-)
The law similarly allows an individual to own a rifle, but places strict limits on what can be done with that rifle. For example, using it to blow a hole in Bill Gates' chest would most likely be out of bounds -- and with good reason, I would hope even the most libritarian among us would agree.
It would seem to me (as an individual, I can assure you that I do not speak for my employer), that there is, or at least was, a valid question whether Microsoft holds a monopoly. The only mechanism provided with which that question may be decided is a court trial. Accepting the reality of human failings, that is really the best we can do. Judge Jackson's findings and rulings will undoubtedly not be the final word on this (although the final words could quite simply be that Judge Jackson was right), which for a matter as serious as this one is of course quite proper.
Life is political. Commerce is political. And we are all hacks in one way or another.
--Bob |
