Courts can define a monopoly or anything else for that matter, anyway they want. It all depends on the passions and biases of the times.
Right, everybody is so politically biased against Bill Gates, the humble programmer these day. Poor naive Bill, blindsided by politics. Somehow, I doubt we'll hear much about bias when the idealogues on the appeals panel rule. If they rule for Microsoft, it will because they know the TRUTH, right? And even if it's a procedural ruling, I'm sure we'll here from the legal experts in this forum that it proves Microsoft is not a monopoly. Just like the original consent decree did.
Since I'm more concerned with the "court of public opinion" I'll stick with the dictionary definition thankyou.
Oh, right again John. Your full approval of the "raised middle finger " defense is very consistent with this position. That was a big success PR wise. Oh, I forgot, you got these polls that show everybody loves Bill. Both of them, I hear. Anyway, to repeat an old question, where exactly was Compaq supposed to go when Microsoft said "put the sacred icon back where it belongs, or else"? Somebody seemed to have total control of something there. But of course, we both know it was really silly to get in a fight about a dumb ICON, right?
As for me, that was the part I liked about the whole thing- a little more public exposure of the "standard Microsoft business practice" we all know and love. That's the reason Microsoft is held in such high esteem, right?
Cheers, Dan. |
