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.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (7294)	10/22/1997 10:20:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

I agree with you to a point as well and that point is that MSFT enjoys a monopoly and as such has to bend over backwards to make sure that playing field is level not the other way around as they seem to be doing now. Making rules under the guise of a rather thin excuse of "uniform Windows experience initiative", when only your product and not competing products are allowed is not in any intrest but MSFT's. This is called bundling. And as they are applying it, imo, it is contrary to rules that apply to monopoly situations. If it wasn't for these monoply rules MSFT wouldn't even exist in it's current form, if at all. We would be having an argument (collegial discussion) over whether it is fair that IBM owns every computer and gets a royalty on every program every time it's used. IBM entered into a consent decree and in theory so did MSFT. But it would seem that they are aggressively ignoring the letter and intent of their agreements. By way of disclosure, I don't own any MSFT either.