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 : Zapata (ZAP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RJC2006 who wrote (566)	7/28/1998 3:55:00 AM
From: Philip J. Davis	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1206

Bob, >>Now according to your logic Bill Gates contributed to Marxists so he too must be a Marxist.<< Falacious logic. Beware the invalid assumption. Being a mechanical design engineer, you should be well aware of this. >>No, as I recall MSFT said they would sanction companies by not selling them the operating system at all should they elect to include products of competitors. A typical predatory practice.<< You are misinformed. This is not true. And in any case, why wouldn't the OEM's call MSFT's bluff and simply purchase IBM's OS/2? Could it be that most consumers prefer Windows to OS/2? Imagine that! >>>>As far as I am aware, there is only one OS that competes with Windows: IBM's OS/2 Warp. Where is Sun's OS? Apple? Netscape? Ditto.<< And your point is....<< My point is that MSFT's erstwhile competitors refuse to compete against it. If only one company competes directly against MSFT in the OS market, how can MSFT be accused of possessing a monopoly? It is because DOJ thinks that MSFT has a monopoly in the OS market that they feel MSFT is "leveraging" it's monopoly to sell other products. The monopoly doesn't exist. Ergo, MSFT is not guilty "typical predatory practice". >>Have I ever stated that MSFT had a monopoly in operating systems. Well, have I?<< No, but you have insinuated it. Your allegation of "typical predatory practice" has no meaning unless you assume that MSFT has a monopoly in OS's. Otherwise, the OEM's could tell MSFT to jump in a lake and buy a competing OS. Why don't they? The fact is that MSFT has no monopoly. OEM's are free to purchase a competing OS from IBM if they choose. Most consumers, however, demand that the computers they buy have Windows as its OS. You can't blame MSFT for this. The fact that only one other company bothers to write an OS to compete with Windows is not MSFT's fault. Its the fault of Apple, Netscape, Sun Micro, et al. Those cry babies just want a free ride, gratis of the government. True to form, DOJ is coming to their aid against big bad, competitive, capitalistic MSFT. You know what? DOJ is going to lose. >>What? A show of intellect. Don't squabble about personal attacks when someone disputes your pet theory and then turn around and display an equal show of disrespect.<< You're right. I won't squabble. >>Competition is defined in the market place as providing the better product not inhibiting another competitor's chances by exercising a dominant product in the ways I have discussed.<< You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. Philip