awell you still did not answer my question , i.e what is the difference between the following two sentences ,
1) we will do something to undermind company X
2) We will develop better products to compete fiercely with company X, if we win we will undermind company X.
The problem for DOJ is whenever Microsoft said it will undermind company X,
DOJ always preassume that Microsoft will play the monopoly game.
In this DOJ case against Microsoft, all evidence so far from DOJ are either talking stories from Microsoft's competitors, or e-mails from Microsoft that it will do something to undermind its competitors. But DOJ never had any solid evidence that
Microsoft will undermind its competitors by playing the monopoly games.The DOJ never thought that when Microsoft said it will do something to undermind its competitors, it only meant Microsoft will develop better products to compete fiercely , and if Microsoft wins, the result is , the competitors being underminded. So what wrong with it to undermind the competitors , especially wrote it down in the internal e-mails ? You can undermind your competitors by developing better products. If Microsoft is not allowed to undermind its competitors, then it only means that Microsoft's constitutional right of developing new products is underminded by the DOJ. Because whenever you develop a better product and compete with your competitors fiercely in the market, and if you win, the result is
your competitors being underminded. If the DOJ did not allow Microsoft to undermind its competitors, it means Microsoft is not allowed to compete in the market any more . I do not think it is legal for DOJ to conduct in that way. |
