Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (10854)	7/2/2001 5:51:28 PM
From: TechTrader42	Respond to of 52237

An interesting point, Dave. Thanks for posting that. The court ruled that MSFT violated antitrust laws, engaging in illegal anticompetitive conduct, illegally thwarting competitors. Ashcroft said after the ruling: "We feel that the court [decision], in stating very clearly that the monopoly position of Microsoft was maintained in an unlawful manner and by unlawful conduct ... is a major victory." One way of summarizing the ruling in press reports was to say MSFT was operating an illegal monopoly. That doesn't mean, or necessarily imply, that a monopoly is illegal. It means that MSFT's monopoly position was maintained in an illegal manner. If I say someone is operating an illegal casino, it doesn't mean that casinos are illegal. It simply means that the casino is being operated illegally. I do think that "illegal monopoly" could be misleading, however. Thanks again for posting your note.