Some would consider antitrust violations illegal; apparently many here don't.
Assuming you mean here=this thread, I haven't seen any posts arguing that a violation is legal, maybe I missed it. Could you refer me to that/those post(s)? TIA
Personally speaking, a violation is just that, once fully proven. May I hasten to remind you, as far as I know, it's still "law in process" and that THE ruling has yet to be made, and in all likelihood will not be made, due to a settlement in the offing (sometime in 2001). But then again, I'm no lawyer, although I have learned more about law and politics through this case then I ever imagined I would (or wanted to at the time, but quite glad for the crash course). So that in itself, is the good side in all this. Not just for myself, but everyone who has been inflicted by the actions of the beloved expansionists at the helm currently in DC, and what 'should be' because they 'think so' for the benefit thereof. This of course, is including the perception of, the application of antitrust law for their (read: their=liberal/socialist) greater good, at far greater cost to our citizenship of the U.S. (monetarily, as well as freedom).
True we vote them in but maybe...that was why? <vbg>...
Maybe it's a VERY personalized lesson for some (at least me) of saying, MORE then I knew before: "It's the stupid electorate" or "It's the electorate, Stupid!" vs. "It's the economy stupid". Different verbiage, with far greater consequences as well as interpretations, as witnessed today.
Apparently it needs to hit home financially to be listened to, and thank Goodness, it is bearing at least some fruit through this case to the electorate through U.S. vs. Microsoft.
Of the electable, it's GWB, who has stated that he prefers "innovation over litigation", and that Mr. Tutt, is code for saying he considers your stated antitrust violations comment wouldn't exist today, _at_all_, if he was seated in the same seat, of whom we expect more of in office. It's plain and simple, at least to me. |
