To: wbmw who wrote (241493 ) 9/29/2007 9:33:00 PM From: fastpathguru Respond to I can see why you think the MIT professor should be taken seriously, but I actually don't think you have understood exactly what he has said. In my previous post, I called out a particular piece of the professor's reasoning that relates competitive environments to protecting the consumer. That's the crux of what I am saying. Message 23924233 The fact that the courts decided that Microsoft's practices were destroying any hope of competitive products coming out (in the case of free Media Player installs, which gave consumers little incentive to pay for competitive products), does not in any way conclude that Intel should be found guilty in their entirely different scenario. US case against MS, not the EU one.You say that the facts are obvious, and that I am being stupid for ignoring them, but you have yet to tell me what Intel has done that is harmful for consumers. Unless you can relate their *proven* behaviors back to harming the consumer, as the courts did in the case of Microsoft, I don't think you have a case to claim that Intel's behaviors are obviously harmful. implies that consumers were harmed.Message 23923519
